1. Interestingly enough, Richard Feldman's elm-spa example is composed of a lot of different TEA components.
2. I think the boilerplate is good in making things explicit.
2. I think the boilerplate is good in making things explicit.
But in react is is natural to say "oh I need a spinner, let's make a functional react component for that". And you can always keep some local state in React and avoid the message passing relay-race you'd have in Elm with the same approach. So Elm benefits from a different approach.
I think Boilerplate is the lack of a more succinct way of expressing your intent. So, boilerplate is never good in making things explicit, it's just the (current) shortest way possible to accurately expose your intent.
For example, in TypeScript, if I delve into making datastructures `algebra-ish`, I always have the boilerplate of defining a `tag` field in my objects, and lengthy switch-constructs to match on the tag field. It's not good in making things explicit, it's actually just the only way (at the moment).