I'm bullish on web components as a distribution mechanism. In fact, we're currently hard at work betting our entire company (https://talkjs.com https://talkjs.c

I'm bullish on web components as a distribution mechanism. In fact, we're currently hard at work betting our entire company (https://talkjs.com https://talkjs.com - a component library + API for chat) on it. I agree with Nolan here that the performance is fine. People keep comparing web components to React or Solid components, but the latter inherently have a tiny granularity whereas web components is primarily a way to distribute reuseable elements, not an application framework on its own. Don't make every tiny piece of your app its own little web component (or, at least, don't do it without a framework such as Lit to skip the pain). But web components are the way to build a component once and have it usable in all web frameworks (including none at all) out of the box. That's fantastic! And also unprecedented (on the web, that is). It bothers me that so much of the discussion is still about whether web components are good primitives to build frameworks on top of. No, not really, they're pretty awful for that! But for distribution, nothing else comes close. I'd love it for some alternative standard to emerge, without all the awful design choices of web components. And I agree with Rich (Svelte) and Ryan (Solid) that WCs being built into browsers are getting in the way of some other collective component interop design emerging. But until the framework authors stick their heads together and invent a fast, modular, non-shitty, property-only, functional-smelling standard for distributing components, I'm sticking with web components. For component authors, the only alternative is making a React version, a Preact version, a Lit version, a Svelte version, a Vue version, an Angular version, a Solid version and a vanilla JS version of the same UI component. That's awful! Web components are clunky but they're here, now!