5 ms·
This is a featherweight component: const A = () => <div>hi</div> const B = () => <A /> Polymer is everything but light, it is a huge abstraction. It s
by mlsarecmg 9y ago
This is a featherweight component:
const A = () => <div>hi</div>
const B = () => <A />
Polymer is everything but light, it is a huge abstraction. It ships a template engine parsing arbitrary syntax, emulates an arbitrary javascript accent, relies on dependency injection (in the above example it couldn't even refer to component A for instance).
Being stuck with an old version that becomes unable to participate in its own eco system is no joke. It isn't just about performance. Imagine the implications for the community that builds parts, components and tools. Even if you deal with self-contained web-components, you'll still fetch two full versions of Polymer just to have them side by side. How insane is that?
And if they finally find a good balance, perhaps version 4 or 5, it has to compete against React eventually. And i doubt it'll look any less poor than it does right now.
- KirinDave 9y agoUsing js to write a component framework is quite more heavyweight compared to using a browser supported system. In terms of weight, Polymer is less so because it uses less js code (the most expensive bytes for all parties), has fewer dependencies, and doesn't try and render server side. As for ok'd versions: why is it impossible for a company or individual that needs it to maintain it themselves? Anyone using React or Angular also needs to do this. React seems, to me, to be too big to fail. And the existence of Redux should show: it is far from perfect.