9 ms·

After using hyperscript via Mithril, I don't think I can go back to writing JSX. Hyperscript should be the defacto way to template HTML in JavaScript in my opi

After using hyperscript via Mithril, I don't think I can go back to writing JSX. Hyperscript should be the defacto way to template HTML in JavaScript in my opinion, it's just so much cleaner and readable.

azangru 6y ago
It's been the way Elm describes its components; and I believe Andre Staltz has been criticizing jsx in favor of hyperscript since forever [0], and included hyperscript in cycle.js. Lit-html, which is using template literals, is another good option. [0] - https://staltz.com/some-problems-with-react-redux.html https://staltz.com/some-problems-with-react-redux.html
nsonha 6y ago
Back when jsx was introduced people said so too but they weren't as loud as the other group. When you look at a completely new language, reasonml where they're still of the mindset that jsx bring familiarity it makes nosense. Just an excuse for some abitrary preference.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Someone might find these issues interesting on flutter regarding jsx: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/11609 https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/11609 https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/15922 https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/15922
  - nsonha 6y ago
    I remember getting excited learning that I could do Xamarin Form in plain function calls in F#. Android is going similar journey simplify UI programming with Jetpack Compose. Jsx is backward and purely stylistic.
pier25 6y ago
I love Mithril but I find hs to be noisy to read and tedious to write. It's probably because I've been reading and writing HTML for +20 years though.
- rapind 6y ago
  Yes, probably. I started using haml (then slim) a very long time ago and the hyperscript / elm type syntax is fairly intuitive to me.
  - engineeringwoke 6y ago
    What is the point of templating HTML? I really don't understand it. Just write HTML or HTML-like APIs like JSX. Is there some theoretical reason why this is wrong?
    - rapind 6y ago
      Subjective I guess. For me it’s just a reduction in noise and I prefer to read code with significant white space. Perfectly ok writing HTML, but given the option, and if it doesn’t screw with others, I prefer not too.
    - jschrf 6y ago
      JSX is HTML templating
- lhorie 6y ago
  (mithril author here) hyperscript is about as close to a middle ground as we can get. It's compatible with JSX for the folks that really really want to see angled brackets, while still being uniform javascript like other API variations (div(), html`<div></div>`, etc). The lit-html syntax is not bad either, but template strings did not have as widespread support back when mithril originally came out.
  - engineeringwoke 6y ago
    Yeah but why isn't it just HTML?
kgwxd 6y ago
To me Reagent is the ultimate answer to the markup/code mix. A single language, ClojureScript. Nothing is done in strings except text. I absolutely love it, but haven't been able to use on a production project yet. [0] https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent#examples https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent#examples
- aidenn0 6y ago
  I really like clojurescript in theory, but have a dumb practical reason for not being able to use it. I do a lot of programming in common lisp, and am way too used to a lisp-2. I literally can't write more than 100 lines of clojure without accidentally shadowing a function binding with a variable binding. I think the only way to break the habit would be to abstain from common lisp for 6 months or longer.
  - narwally 6y ago
    I have the opposite issue trying to write in emacs-lisp after doing lots of clojure. I try to: (mapcar my-func my-list) and it throws void-variable and then I remember that I have to add the #' reader macro to have it read as a function not a variable. (mapcar #'my-func my-list) It just takes some time to switch the mental model over each time. Clojure did get me in the habit of using unique names for all functions and values because accidentally shadowing a function binding is that more difficult mistake to debug. In practice I haven't missed the flexibility of a lisp-2, if anything it's just made my code more readable because my names are forced to be more descriptive
- narwally 6y ago
  using hiccup to write html has been a godsend. I find it much easier to visualize the html that hiccup will generate vs JSX, and I can do arbitrary manipulations on it just like I can with any other clojure data structure.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    > I find it much easier to visualize the html that hiccup will generate vs JSX, Can you elaborate on this? On first glance it seems the same, just with a syntax that uses different symbols than HTML?
vorpalhex 6y ago
I've done a few projects in mithril, and having used both jsx and hyperscript, I tend to lean jsx. That comes with some very real downsides - mostly getting jsx to work requires a bunch of extra (ugly) tooling. On the other hand, very complex components look very clean. Hyperscript when you have a relatively nested dom element gets quite messy and hard to visually parse for me.
dsego 6y ago
Combined with coffeescript it's even nicer since you can ditch the parentheses and have a very clean indented syntax.

azangru 6y ago

It's been the way Elm describes its components; and I believe Andre Staltz has been criticizing jsx in favor of hyperscript since forever [0], and included hyperscript in cycle.js. Lit-html, which is using template literals, is another good option. [0] - https://staltz.com/some-problems-with-react-redux.html https://staltz.com/some-problems-with-react-redux.html

nsonha 6y ago

Back when jsx was introduced people said so too but they weren't as loud as the other group. When you look at a completely new language, reasonml where they're still of the mindset that jsx bring familiarity it makes nosense. Just an excuse for some abitrary preference.

searchableguy 6y ago
Someone might find these issues interesting on flutter regarding jsx: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/11609 https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/11609 https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/15922 https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/15922
- nsonha 6y ago
  I remember getting excited learning that I could do Xamarin Form in plain function calls in F#. Android is going similar journey simplify UI programming with Jetpack Compose. Jsx is backward and purely stylistic.

pier25 6y ago

I love Mithril but I find hs to be noisy to read and tedious to write. It's probably because I've been reading and writing HTML for +20 years though.

rapind 6y ago
Yes, probably. I started using haml (then slim) a very long time ago and the hyperscript / elm type syntax is fairly intuitive to me.
- engineeringwoke 6y ago
  What is the point of templating HTML? I really don't understand it. Just write HTML or HTML-like APIs like JSX. Is there some theoretical reason why this is wrong?
  - rapind 6y ago
    Subjective I guess. For me it’s just a reduction in noise and I prefer to read code with significant white space. Perfectly ok writing HTML, but given the option, and if it doesn’t screw with others, I prefer not too.
  - jschrf 6y ago
    JSX is HTML templating
lhorie 6y ago
(mithril author here) hyperscript is about as close to a middle ground as we can get. It's compatible with JSX for the folks that really really want to see angled brackets, while still being uniform javascript like other API variations (div(), html`<div></div>`, etc). The lit-html syntax is not bad either, but template strings did not have as widespread support back when mithril originally came out.
- engineeringwoke 6y ago
  Yeah but why isn't it just HTML?

kgwxd 6y ago

To me Reagent is the ultimate answer to the markup/code mix. A single language, ClojureScript. Nothing is done in strings except text. I absolutely love it, but haven't been able to use on a production project yet. [0] https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent#examples https://github.com/reagent-project/reagent#examples

aidenn0 6y ago
I really like clojurescript in theory, but have a dumb practical reason for not being able to use it. I do a lot of programming in common lisp, and am way too used to a lisp-2. I literally can't write more than 100 lines of clojure without accidentally shadowing a function binding with a variable binding. I think the only way to break the habit would be to abstain from common lisp for 6 months or longer.
- narwally 6y ago
  I have the opposite issue trying to write in emacs-lisp after doing lots of clojure. I try to: (mapcar my-func my-list) and it throws void-variable and then I remember that I have to add the #' reader macro to have it read as a function not a variable. (mapcar #'my-func my-list) It just takes some time to switch the mental model over each time. Clojure did get me in the habit of using unique names for all functions and values because accidentally shadowing a function binding is that more difficult mistake to debug. In practice I haven't missed the flexibility of a lisp-2, if anything it's just made my code more readable because my names are forced to be more descriptive
narwally 6y ago
using hiccup to write html has been a godsend. I find it much easier to visualize the html that hiccup will generate vs JSX, and I can do arbitrary manipulations on it just like I can with any other clojure data structure.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > I find it much easier to visualize the html that hiccup will generate vs JSX, Can you elaborate on this? On first glance it seems the same, just with a syntax that uses different symbols than HTML?

vorpalhex 6y ago

I've done a few projects in mithril, and having used both jsx and hyperscript, I tend to lean jsx. That comes with some very real downsides - mostly getting jsx to work requires a bunch of extra (ugly) tooling. On the other hand, very complex components look very clean. Hyperscript when you have a relatively nested dom element gets quite messy and hard to visually parse for me.

dsego 6y ago

Combined with coffeescript it's even nicer since you can ditch the parentheses and have a very clean indented syntax.