5 ms·
I agree with you to the extent that components = interactive. But there are other benefits of a component model, even for pages which are mostly static. They al
by eyelidlessness 5y ago
I agree with you to the extent that components = interactive. But there are other benefits of a component model, even for pages which are mostly static. They allow you to develop the same page and its various (reusable) parts with the same code for rendering the static parts and the dynamic parts. This is especially nice on sites where the dynamic-to-static ratio may vary significantly between pages, or between areas of the same page.
This use case hasn’t been particularly well supported by many component libraries (React among them; Marko being a long time notable exception), but it’s an area that’s currently having a bit of a renaissance: there is of course Marko which has supported this model for years, joined by other notable frameworks like Astro and Qwik. Even React is moving more in this direction with Server Components, just targeting other use cases.
The component model will continue to thrive, not because everything is interactive, but because components are an excellent abstraction for developing for the web (and a lot of other formats).