5 ms·

> Writing code, not strings, means you can do everything to it that you can do to code. These are tagged templates, not strings. They work as code at runtime,

> Writing code, not strings, means you can do everything to it that you can do to code. These are tagged templates, not strings. They work as code at runtime, and it already has support to optimize it, compile it, etc. This is JS all the way down. And spankalee mentioned below they're adding typescript support to type check the very similar lit-html, so that's coming too. > That's why I like JSX, it's Javascript all the way down. Everything is code. It's a very well designed and thought out DSL. It's also kind of a weird to highlight all this for a DSL that actually has to be parsed from a string to get it to be Javascript. Everything else you're talking about is tooling that had to be built special for it, not the language itself. Why not just say "I like the style of jsx embedding and existing tools better" :)

domenicd 8y ago
+1. It's all strings (of source code) in the end. It's just a matter of how well the tools support those strings. There exists a medium-sized ecosystem of tools which supports static checks on strings inside angle brackets, a la JSX. There is a smaller-but-growing ecosystem of tools that supports static checks on strings inside backticks, a la HTM/lit-html/etc. There's no fundamental difference here.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  The fundamental difference is what you have in the end. With JSX you have function calls (JSX is a very thin DSL after all). With tagged literals you end up with runtime string parsing and concatenation.
  - rickycook 8y ago
    and i think this is the point; runtime vs compile time! similar reasons that people love the popular new type systems... if it compiles, it probably works or you get an error rather than pushing that later and possibly not catching it
  - magicalist 8y ago
    > The fundamental difference is what you have in the end. With JSX you have function calls Check out the output of the Babel plugin mentioned in the readme > // input: > html`<div id="foo">hello ${you}</div>` > // output: > React.createElement("div", { id: "foo" }, "hello ", you) options https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      It's (marginally) better than having it at runtime. Poor man's macros. Much like JSX in a sense, though JSX is a much thinner abstraction IMO.
dmitriid 8y ago
> These are tagged templates, not strings. They work as code at runtime, and it already has support to optimize it, compile it, etc. Optimize, compile etc. what? f`string` is literally a function call f("string"). What exactly are you "compiling and optimizing"?
- atombender 8y ago
  No, that's incorrect. Interpolations (${}) are preserved. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Template_literals https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    Let's return to the original statement, shall we? > These are tagged templates, not strings. They work as code at runtime, and it already has support to optimize it, compile it, etc. So. How exactly do they "work as code" and "have support to optimize it, compile it, etc."? Here's HTM's main function https://github.com/developit/htm/blob/master/src/index.mjs#L27 https://github.com/developit/htm/blob/master/src/index.mjs#L... It: concatenates strings, parses (via regexes), then concatenates again. Can someone enlighten me as to why this is awesome, is code, is optimized and compiled?
    - wild_preference 8y ago
      They're just talking about https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm. > A Babel plugin that compiles htm syntax to hyperscript, React.createElement, or just plain objects.
    - atombender 8y ago
      I was responding to your false assertion that f`s` is the exact equivalent of f("s"), which only holds true without interpolations. f`a${b}c`) becomes f("a", b, "c"). Secondly, the answer is Babel. Since the string's components are part of the AST, it can optimize and compile it as the original poster claimed.
madeofpalk 8y ago
> These are tagged templates, not strings Tagged templates are strings.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

domenicd 8y ago

+1. It's all strings (of source code) in the end. It's just a matter of how well the tools support those strings. There exists a medium-sized ecosystem of tools which supports static checks on strings inside angle brackets, a la JSX. There is a smaller-but-growing ecosystem of tools that supports static checks on strings inside backticks, a la HTM/lit-html/etc. There's no fundamental difference here.

dmitriid 8y ago
The fundamental difference is what you have in the end. With JSX you have function calls (JSX is a very thin DSL after all). With tagged literals you end up with runtime string parsing and concatenation.
- rickycook 8y ago
  and i think this is the point; runtime vs compile time! similar reasons that people love the popular new type systems... if it compiles, it probably works or you get an error rather than pushing that later and possibly not catching it
- magicalist 8y ago
  > The fundamental difference is what you have in the end. With JSX you have function calls Check out the output of the Babel plugin mentioned in the readme > // input: > html`<div id="foo">hello ${you}</div>` > // output: > React.createElement("div", { id: "foo" }, "hello ", you) options https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    It's (marginally) better than having it at runtime. Poor man's macros. Much like JSX in a sense, though JSX is a much thinner abstraction IMO.

dmitriid 8y ago

> These are tagged templates, not strings. They work as code at runtime, and it already has support to optimize it, compile it, etc. Optimize, compile etc. what? f`string` is literally a function call f("string"). What exactly are you "compiling and optimizing"?

atombender 8y ago
No, that's incorrect. Interpolations (${}) are preserved. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Template_literals https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
- dmitriid 8y ago
  Let's return to the original statement, shall we? > These are tagged templates, not strings. They work as code at runtime, and it already has support to optimize it, compile it, etc. So. How exactly do they "work as code" and "have support to optimize it, compile it, etc."? Here's HTM's main function https://github.com/developit/htm/blob/master/src/index.mjs#L27 https://github.com/developit/htm/blob/master/src/index.mjs#L... It: concatenates strings, parses (via regexes), then concatenates again. Can someone enlighten me as to why this is awesome, is code, is optimized and compiled?
  - wild_preference 8y ago
    They're just talking about https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-htm. > A Babel plugin that compiles htm syntax to hyperscript, React.createElement, or just plain objects.
  - atombender 8y ago
    I was responding to your false assertion that f`s` is the exact equivalent of f("s"), which only holds true without interpolations. f`a${b}c`) becomes f("a", b, "c"). Secondly, the answer is Babel. Since the string's components are part of the AST, it can optimize and compile it as the original poster claimed.

madeofpalk 8y ago

> These are tagged templates, not strings Tagged templates are strings.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]