> The fact that you got fooled into thinking that is the opposite of a DSL problem. Which part of what I wrote makes you think I think JSX is an HTML template?

> The fact that you got fooled into thinking that is the opposite of a DSL problem. Which part of what I wrote makes you think I think JSX is an HTML template? The part where I specifically called it "not-html" and the react.createElement code it's translated to "still-not-html"? That it's kind-of-HTML-but-not, turned into Javascript, turned into shadow-DOM transformations, turned into HTML, is Rube-Goldbergian enough to warrant skepticism. No need to misunderstand it to feel that it's an indication that something somewhere has gone deeply, fundamentally wrong. And actually I think it'd be fair and consistent to call it a template language, were I inclined to press that point. That it becomes Javascript doesn't change the form it takes when you're writing it. Looks and quacks enough like a duck that insisting it's totally not a duck at all is untenable. Sure, it's translated into shadow-DOM-transforming JS. So? It's not like HTML itself doesn't go through some intermediary representations before becoming different colored glowing pixels on your screen.