3 ms·
My thoughts -- why does everyone have to come up with some new, _novel_ way of writing html? Looks like all the examples of wasp are just declarative objects a
by l30n4da5 5y ago
My thoughts -- why does everyone have to come up with some new, _novel_ way of writing html?
Looks like all the examples of wasp are just declarative objects and/or html, so not sure what wasp can do just from looking at those.
- jedisct1 5y agoEspecially when it doesn't seem to bring anything over haml and pug.
- trutannus 5y agoThe most concise and precise way to write a language is generally in the language itself too.
- jedisct1 5y agoDoesn't really apply to HTML. Using indentation instead of XML-like opening and closing tags is way more concise, and encodes exactly the same information.
- zamadatix 5y agoIt's shorter, I don't know about concise though I suppose that's a subjective point anyways. While it's generally exactly the same there are some corner cases involving formatting rather than structure tags where it's not always 1:1.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- obiwan14 5y agoThinking the same thing too. I find it a lot easier to read an HTML markup that a Wasp equivalent. Perhaps it's because I'm not a bard core dev, but reading all those {} is visually straining.
- harryvederci 5y agoIndeed. We all know hiccup[0] style is the one true way to do it. [0] https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup
- danielvaughn 5y agoFor me it's about the fact that html was designed for documents with minimal interactivity, and while it's possible to represent a highly interactive application in html, it poses several significant headaches for developers. I don't know the right solution, but it's clear that what we have right now doesn't suit our needs and make web development far costlier than it otherwise could be.
- Apofis 5y agoCould've sworn we just did this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29093482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29093482