I love the ideas here, but honestly the examples are a bit weak here. > Where possible, default to defining style and behaviour with inline HTML attributes bu

I love the ideas here, but honestly the examples are a bit weak here. > Where possible, default to defining style and behaviour with inline HTML attributes but their example wouldn't work. <div class="bg-green" onlick="this.classList.add('green')"> should probably be <div onclick="this.classList.add('bg-green')"> which I think makes it a little more clear how weird this could get if you wanted to add more styles. You just keep growing the params passed to the ClassList add method, in a string. I would personally find <button></button> button:active { background: green; } to be much more readable, but the author seems to imply this is complicated due to their approach of "Locality of Behaviour". -- > Where libraries are necessary, use libraries that leverage html attributes over libraries built around javascript or custom syntax I totally agree! But why is your example of a library not built around javascript or a custom syntax feature: <input type="text" _="on input put me into #output"> <div id="output"></div> That "on input put me into #output" I think is more jarring that the library shown as the bad example. Even better, this could just be some JS, without a framework at all. -- > Prefer "naked" HTML to obfuscation layers that compile down to HTML Their example is to not use Rails ERB tag helpers, in your templates. I don't think this is that big of an issue, these helpers can actually handle a lot of things that will look messy if you use the minimal amount of templating to write them. The example leaves off unique dom ids, turbo tags (very HTML/no JS focused!) and iteration.