3 ms·

JSX has always been SGML/XML-inspired, but not SGML/XML compliant, so nothing is changing there. And the thing is, even if it were, what a parser/compiler does

by aylmao 6y ago

JSX has always been SGML/XML-inspired, but not SGML/XML compliant, so nothing is changing there. And the thing is, even if it were, what a parser/compiler does to represent a language is its own completely independent thing. At one point I had to use XML in JS (back in the day, haha). I parsed the XML and represented each node as a single object, with `__name` and `__children`. They were "one dimension" in my representation, but also literally a compliant XML parser— more compliant than JSX.

lucideer 6y ago
> a parser/compiler does to represent a language is its own completely independent thing This isn't really true of JSX; I'd suggest giving it a try to see exactly how the system works. To summarize, there are 3 parts of this discussion: 1. The JSX syntax (part of the JSX spec.) 2. The JSX transform (part of the JSX spec. & what parser/compiler must represent the language as) 3. The template function implemention: 100% independent and can represent nodes any way they want In your comment you're imagining a system where 2 & 3 are coupled, whereas this isn't how the JSX world works. With JSX, 1 & 2 are coupled, only 3 is independent.
- aylmao 6y ago
  > 2. The JSX transform (part of the JSX spec. & what parser/compiler must represent the language as) Ah, ok I see where this misunderstanding stems from. See, this is not part of the spec. With JSX, there's a very popular transpiler (Babel's), but it's by no means the only one or even "the official one". The spec actually lists three, and mentions [1]: > "These are a set of transpilers that all conform to the JSX syntax but use different semantics on the output: [...]" JSX is most commonly used with React, so if you're making a JSX transpiler it makes sense to make your default output work with React. This is by no means part of the definition of JSX though or a spec requirement. [1] https://facebook.github.io/jsx/ https://facebook.github.io/jsx/

by aylmao 6y ago

lucideer 6y ago

> a parser/compiler does to represent a language is its own completely independent thing This isn't really true of JSX; I'd suggest giving it a try to see exactly how the system works. To summarize, there are 3 parts of this discussion: 1. The JSX syntax (part of the JSX spec.) 2. The JSX transform (part of the JSX spec. & what parser/compiler must represent the language as) 3. The template function implemention: 100% independent and can represent nodes any way they want In your comment you're imagining a system where 2 & 3 are coupled, whereas this isn't how the JSX world works. With JSX, 1 & 2 are coupled, only 3 is independent.

aylmao 6y ago
> 2. The JSX transform (part of the JSX spec. & what parser/compiler must represent the language as) Ah, ok I see where this misunderstanding stems from. See, this is not part of the spec. With JSX, there's a very popular transpiler (Babel's), but it's by no means the only one or even "the official one". The spec actually lists three, and mentions [1]: > "These are a set of transpilers that all conform to the JSX syntax but use different semantics on the output: [...]" JSX is most commonly used with React, so if you're making a JSX transpiler it makes sense to make your default output work with React. This is by no means part of the definition of JSX though or a spec requirement. [1] https://facebook.github.io/jsx/ https://facebook.github.io/jsx/