11 ms·

I've been fought by people insisting that if we're using a framework, we should be using it for everything, if it has it, even when both agree that doing it nat

by oblak 3y ago

I've been fought by people insisting that if we're using a framework, we should be using it for everything, if it has it, even when both agree that doing it natively is actually less cumbersome. All that in the name of consistency. I think middle ground is a good solution. On topic: I don't think WebComponents are going to "make it" until someone builds a nice framework on top of them. React, Vue, Svelte, etc. solve a number of problems that are not directly solved by Web Components. State management, rendering, routing - right now, these are, imho, the high level areas that need solid solutions for an UI app to function in any sane way. How much of that is solved by going Web Components?

DarkNova6 3y ago
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind
earthboundkid 3y ago
"Web Components" are the name for a dream, not an actual technology. The actual technologies involved -- customElement and shadow DOM -- are pretty crappy to use directly, and even when hidden behind a framework/library don't buy you that much. But people want it to be true that there is such a thing as a "Web Component" so the dream lives on.
- gitaarik 3y ago
  Why do you think this? I've been using it for years and it works lovely, no complaints at all.
spankalee 3y ago
I work on Lit, which I would hesitate to call a framework, but gives a framework-like DX for building web components, while trying to keep opinions to a minimum and lock-in as low as possible. It's got reactivity, declarative templates, great performance, SSR, TypeScript support, native CSS encapsulation, context, tasks, and more. It's used to build Material Design, settings and devtools UIs for Chrome, some UI for Firefox, Reddit, Photoshop Web... https://lit.dev https://lit.dev if you're interested.
- troupo 3y ago
  > lock-in as low as possible. As in: - reactivity. Specific to lit - declarative templates. Specific to lit - SSR. Specific to lit. - context. Specific to lit. - tasks. Specific to lit "minimal" and "low lock-in". Please do not hesitate to call it a framework. If you call React a framework, then lit is definitely a framework.
  - spankalee 3y ago
    Lit's features are internal to each component (except context which is being developed as an open community protocol with the Web Components Community Group) and there is no coupling between components written in Lit. So you can port from Lit to something else component-by-component. Lit is also modular. The template library, lit-html, is usable independently and used by other web component and non-web component libraries. The reactive custom element base class ReactiveElement can be used to build web components with a different template system like Preact. So yes, "lock-in as low as possible".
    - troupo 3y ago
      This is just splitting hairs in an attempt to pretend that lit isn't a framework (or framework-like lib), or that it's somehow unopinionated, or that it somehow prevents you from lock-in. Almost all of the things you listed are specific to lit, and lit only. So, people who will develop with lit will be locked in to lit. Because it's not like you can just pop the code you wrote with lit into stencil or ionic, and will just work. > So you can port from Lit to something else component-by-component. I personally saw a huge project ported from Angular to React basically doing the same. It's not a testament to lit. It's what people have been doing since time immemorial.
      - hmcdona1 3y ago
        I mean they have to be for now - you're just being semantic for the sake of it a bit. I will say as a team that utilizes Lit for our design system web components (which none of our users even need to know or care about no matter their framework btw). The Lit team are huge advocates of aligning with native standards (now or what they might be in the future) and working to establish or push them forward. The goal of the project for a lot of these issues truly seems to be to eventually not need them to be a part of Lit at all.
toasted-subs 3y ago
Svelte compiles into WebComponents.
- steve_taylor 3y ago
  That’s news to me and probably everyone who uses Svelte including its developers.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  That's good to know. I really liked what I saw last time I played with it but it's hard to find many job listings where people are using svelte. Almost everything is react and surprisingly, at from what I can tell, it's getting even bigger share in job postings I used to see. Hooray for uniformity, I guess.
o11c 3y ago
> I've been fought by people insisting that if we're using a framework, we should be using it for everything, Remember the definition of a framework: a framework is just a library that does not play well with others.
jdmg94 3y ago
Stencil does it, but the resulting web components are still not great to work with because of shadow dom and the missing standards you can't expect from custom elements. You want inline styles? hope your dev remember to drill those down.

by oblak 3y ago

DarkNova6 3y ago

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind

earthboundkid 3y ago

"Web Components" are the name for a dream, not an actual technology. The actual technologies involved -- customElement and shadow DOM -- are pretty crappy to use directly, and even when hidden behind a framework/library don't buy you that much. But people want it to be true that there is such a thing as a "Web Component" so the dream lives on.

gitaarik 3y ago
Why do you think this? I've been using it for years and it works lovely, no complaints at all.

spankalee 3y ago

I work on Lit, which I would hesitate to call a framework, but gives a framework-like DX for building web components, while trying to keep opinions to a minimum and lock-in as low as possible. It's got reactivity, declarative templates, great performance, SSR, TypeScript support, native CSS encapsulation, context, tasks, and more. It's used to build Material Design, settings and devtools UIs for Chrome, some UI for Firefox, Reddit, Photoshop Web... https://lit.dev https://lit.dev if you're interested.

troupo 3y ago
> lock-in as low as possible. As in: - reactivity. Specific to lit - declarative templates. Specific to lit - SSR. Specific to lit. - context. Specific to lit. - tasks. Specific to lit "minimal" and "low lock-in". Please do not hesitate to call it a framework. If you call React a framework, then lit is definitely a framework.
- spankalee 3y ago
  Lit's features are internal to each component (except context which is being developed as an open community protocol with the Web Components Community Group) and there is no coupling between components written in Lit. So you can port from Lit to something else component-by-component. Lit is also modular. The template library, lit-html, is usable independently and used by other web component and non-web component libraries. The reactive custom element base class ReactiveElement can be used to build web components with a different template system like Preact. So yes, "lock-in as low as possible".
  - troupo 3y ago
    This is just splitting hairs in an attempt to pretend that lit isn't a framework (or framework-like lib), or that it's somehow unopinionated, or that it somehow prevents you from lock-in. Almost all of the things you listed are specific to lit, and lit only. So, people who will develop with lit will be locked in to lit. Because it's not like you can just pop the code you wrote with lit into stencil or ionic, and will just work. > So you can port from Lit to something else component-by-component. I personally saw a huge project ported from Angular to React basically doing the same. It's not a testament to lit. It's what people have been doing since time immemorial.
    - hmcdona1 3y ago
      I mean they have to be for now - you're just being semantic for the sake of it a bit. I will say as a team that utilizes Lit for our design system web components (which none of our users even need to know or care about no matter their framework btw). The Lit team are huge advocates of aligning with native standards (now or what they might be in the future) and working to establish or push them forward. The goal of the project for a lot of these issues truly seems to be to eventually not need them to be a part of Lit at all.

toasted-subs 3y ago

Svelte compiles into WebComponents.

steve_taylor 3y ago
That’s news to me and probably everyone who uses Svelte including its developers.
beebeepka 3y ago
That's good to know. I really liked what I saw last time I played with it but it's hard to find many job listings where people are using svelte. Almost everything is react and surprisingly, at from what I can tell, it's getting even bigger share in job postings I used to see. Hooray for uniformity, I guess.

o11c 3y ago

> I've been fought by people insisting that if we're using a framework, we should be using it for everything, Remember the definition of a framework: a framework is just a library that does not play well with others.

jdmg94 3y ago

Stencil does it, but the resulting web components are still not great to work with because of shadow dom and the missing standards you can't expect from custom elements. You want inline styles? hope your dev remember to drill those down.