34 ms·
I think the point is more that by using web components, whatever framework you're using becomes more interchangeable. Web components only solve a piece of what,
by news_to_me 9y ago
I think the point is more that by using web components, whatever framework you're using becomes more interchangeable. Web components only solve a piece of what, say, React does – the component piece. For state management, you can still reach for Redux (which tries to be framework agnostic), or even still embed them in React if that makes sense for your app.
So maybe web components won't stop framework churn, but they'll make it a lot easier to transition between frameworks.
- eric_b 9y agoI dunno, I'd rather use "vanilla" React/Redux/JSX than try and get those tools to fit with custom elements, shadow DOM and the html import/template stuff. The web components specs look poorly thought out to me. They seem superficially like good ideas, but when you actually bother to build something with them you hit the rough edges and missing pieces. I do not appreciate that Chrome rammed them unilaterally down our throats, or that their Polymer evangelists continue to flog these technologies as though they are somehow an answer to the vast majority of problems web developers face.
- whitefish 9y agoJSX standard is independent of React and can be used with Web Components. Also, HTML import is unnecessary to use Web Components. The key technologies in Web Components are ShadowDOM and Custom Elements.
- amsheehan 9y agoReact is an ideal version of web components in a world where ui = f(state)
- ssijak 9y agoSo we push the churn to router, stores and other frameworks?