Hi Stef,
I do understand (at least partially) the value behind it and I tried to play with it more, and there were things that I really liked...
However I feel like many of those concepts should've been introduced directly as part (or an extension) of Roassal, instead of top of it, because that seriously limits its (re)usability without fully committing to Telescope.
In any case from my experiments and considering all other things (like serious lack of documentation, even smaller user-base, different API, ...), I think that it would be currently too much work for too little added value for me,
because I already had to solve some of the problems you guys had on my own, so I would be basically spend a lot of time rewriting code and at the end I would be where I started... and then Roassal 3 would come and I would have to rewrite again.
Also another important part is the overall user experience, so this definitely means that I will need to dive deep into Roassal (and even Morphic) to make things work (as I've already done and continue to do). And since you decided that you want yet another layer between Telescope and Roassal (to be able have another rendering libraries (although from the Telescope code I've seen it's not exactly separated)).
So this would mean for me that I would have to write a lot of stuff twice (or three times (Roassal+Telescope+adapter)); and again, with little added benefit for me (and since I'm not payed for what I do; what I want is my primary concern).
So to summarize...
I think that currently best scenario is to postpone it and look at it again when Roassal 3 starts rolling around, because I will be migrating to Roassal 3 for sure also because of Bloc.
This will also give me more time to familiarize myself more with Telescope and make the transition less painful.
Peter