4 ms·

Can we go back to Jinja now?

• eksemplar 8y ago
  Did we leave jinja? I mean, I know I know, but we still do a lot of jinja on our smaller projects.
• coder543 8y ago
  Why go back?
  • leowoo91 8y ago
    I wanted to phrase it as a circle, just waiting to see how far SPAs can go.
• mrweasel 8y ago
  Maybe it's just me being an old man at this point but I still dislike doing templating in JavaScript. It's not natural. I want Jinja2 and server side rendering. If you absolutely must do JavaScript you should keep it separate of your HTML and other stuff... again maybe I'm just getting old. Honestly I don't find neither JSX, or this new alternative particularly readable.
  • leowoo91 8y ago
    Young is just learning it hardway, we all have been there. Creating walls of abstractions as well as enduser's greed for edgy feel that is turning into easy profit.
  • allover 8y ago
    You can use Jinja-style templates client-side too if you want (see nunchucks). But client-side rendering and server-side rendering have different use-cases. It doesn't come down to just which is 'particularly readable'. > If you absolutely must do JavaScript you should keep it separate of your HTML and other stuff Why? This argument has been lost. If you're writing a rich client-side UI that makes sense to be "component-oriented", there is literally zero value in splitting each component into HTML and JS, it is a completely arbitrary 'separation by technology'.