3 ms·

> Imagine some cool feature like... collaborative editing. In my opinion, the whole point of the article and for everyone who is backing htmx is that SPA frame

> Imagine some cool feature like... collaborative editing. In my opinion, the whole point of the article and for everyone who is backing htmx is that SPA frameworks are too complex (and a liability) for solo/small teams or projects that don't need `collaborative editing`(or other advanced stuff).

nawgz 3y ago
> In my opinion, the whole point of the article Well, in my opinion, the article claims "HTMX is the future" as its title, and so it's impossible to interpret the arguments in any other way than "the user experience benefits of the SPA might matter to the users, but I think it's stupid because I dislike JS"
- CRConrad 3y ago
  > Well, in my opinion, the article claims "HTMX is the future" as its title, Titles are by necessity summary in nature. If you want the whole complexity and nuance of the article in the title, the whole article would have to be the title. It's a bit too long for that. (And then everyone would complain that there was no additional meat to the body text.) > and so it's impossible to interpret the arguments in any other way than "the user experience benefits of the SPA might matter to the users, but I think it's stupid because I dislike JS" No, sorry, that's BS: It's eminently possible to interpret the arguments differently. All you have to take into account is that a less abbreviated (and frankly still a bit too long) version of the title could have been "HTMX is the future for solo/small teams or projects that don't need `collaborative editing`(or other advanced stuff)". HTH!
  - nawgz 3y ago
    > Titles are by necessity summary in nature Ok, that's why I made arguments against the body of the text. Did you read my initial post? I'm sure you must've, which makes it so strange you'd come attack this argument while pretending that the other ones don't exist > It's eminently possible to interpret the arguments differently. It's really not. The whole thing is a series of strawmans aiming to justify degrading user experience to avoid developer "complexity", but then that developer complexity is grossly overstated, as if from someone who has never dipped their toe in it decided that each complaint they had heard about it was spoken by God himself. Indeed, my whole first comment is thoroughly discarding each of these strawmans before I grew frustrated by the fact that the author and the thread were both reciting this 2015-era anti-JS dogma. I suggest you go try to make counterarguments to those points instead of my exasperated reply to someone adding nothing to the convo. HTH!

nawgz 3y ago

> In my opinion, the whole point of the article Well, in my opinion, the article claims "HTMX is the future" as its title, and so it's impossible to interpret the arguments in any other way than "the user experience benefits of the SPA might matter to the users, but I think it's stupid because I dislike JS"

CRConrad 3y ago
> Well, in my opinion, the article claims "HTMX is the future" as its title, Titles are by necessity summary in nature. If you want the whole complexity and nuance of the article in the title, the whole article would have to be the title. It's a bit too long for that. (And then everyone would complain that there was no additional meat to the body text.) > and so it's impossible to interpret the arguments in any other way than "the user experience benefits of the SPA might matter to the users, but I think it's stupid because I dislike JS" No, sorry, that's BS: It's eminently possible to interpret the arguments differently. All you have to take into account is that a less abbreviated (and frankly still a bit too long) version of the title could have been "HTMX is the future for solo/small teams or projects that don't need `collaborative editing`(or other advanced stuff)". HTH!
- nawgz 3y ago
  > Titles are by necessity summary in nature Ok, that's why I made arguments against the body of the text. Did you read my initial post? I'm sure you must've, which makes it so strange you'd come attack this argument while pretending that the other ones don't exist > It's eminently possible to interpret the arguments differently. It's really not. The whole thing is a series of strawmans aiming to justify degrading user experience to avoid developer "complexity", but then that developer complexity is grossly overstated, as if from someone who has never dipped their toe in it decided that each complaint they had heard about it was spoken by God himself. Indeed, my whole first comment is thoroughly discarding each of these strawmans before I grew frustrated by the fact that the author and the thread were both reciting this 2015-era anti-JS dogma. I suggest you go try to make counterarguments to those points instead of my exasperated reply to someone adding nothing to the convo. HTH!