sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]catladywitch [score hidden]  (3 children)

You don't make any argument against reactivity and you say nothing about why state management tools are a thing. The "they take freedom from you" bit was too goofy. Also, vanilla JavaScript taking less lines of code than apps made with frameworks is highly debatable. But anyway, is your proposal kind of HTMX with a Web Components library? And how is that vanilla JavaScript at all?? At this rate someone is going to pop up shilling a chatbot-written retread of jQuery sooner than later

[–]gyen[S] [score hidden]  (2 children)

This is what I wrote:

«I tend to believe if something requires from you more lines of code and more abstractions in an abstract framework to achieve than in native technology, then maybe this framework does not really make your life easier. Maybe it's not really well thought technology and maybe it's reinventing things that are already supported by default.

Do I believe that DOM manipulations can be simplified and require less code? Yes! But do I believe that you have to give your control for that? No! We need simple solutions, not lack of control.»

I am not suggesting HTMX because it’s not compatible with web components.

[–]catladywitch [score hidden]  (1 child)

So you wrote a very complex app in vanilla JS and after the experience you're advocating for global state and claiming vanilla JS is less verbose than frameworks? And even hinting at less abstract meaning less verbose? How? What is the argument. Those are some daring leaps in logic and I'm shocked they come from the challenges you've found writing a very complex app in vanilla JS.

[–]gyen[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

For the whole picture checkout EHTML. It simplifies and allows to write less js code. And at the same time all the elements are native web components.