Thanks for your insights. I was originally hesitant about the performance of proxies, too, but they turned out to be great. The benchmarks (
https://geajs.com/benchmark-report.html) also show good results. Both in terms of memory and CPU cycles, even though proxies are obviously adding an overhead, it's not day and night (
https://jsben.ch/proxy-vs-object-performance-benchmark-dtxo6 is a good test for this). With a proxy, you can set a property 25 million times per second (on my M4 Max machine in Safari) with only 4% perf loss vs defineProperty, and Chrome is about half the perf with 20% loss vs defineProperty. So, still, 12.5 million setters per second is pretty good. Of course if your use case demands more performance, nothing beats a hand-optimized vanilla JS code.
Since Gea doesn't rerender the template _at all (well, for the most part, at least)_, in theory we wouldn't really gain much from getter memoization, mainly because we create proxy observers for computed values that update the DOM in place only when the underlying value updates.
And since stores are plain old JS classes, there's no need for an "async store" concept. Just update a value in the store whenever you want, track its loading state however you want, either synchronously or asynchronously, and the observers will take care of them. If you refer to another pattern that I'm not aware of, please let me know.
Since Gea doesn't rerender the template _at all (well, for the most part, at least)_, in theory we wouldn't really gain much from getter memoization, mainly because we create proxy observers for computed values that update the DOM in place only when the underlying value updates.
And since stores are plain old JS classes, there's no need for an "async store" concept. Just update a value in the store whenever you want, track its loading state however you want, either synchronously or asynchronously, and the observers will take care of them. If you refer to another pattern that I'm not aware of, please let me know.