3 ms·

Wow, your maturity and professionalism are off the charts, and I'll bite. There are two different kinds of problems: those that nature imposes on us, and those

Wow, your maturity and professionalism are off the charts, and I'll bite. There are two different kinds of problems: those that nature imposes on us, and those that we create due to our own stupidity and ignorance. Web components might help you to solve problems created by the latter (and in the process create more problems of the same sort). React, on the other hand, was a true step forwards for how to approach making user interfaces. Web components are a packaging mechanism for custom HTML tags. If it were just that, fine, but the spec tries to make them into so much more, and this is where the problem and the complexity, and all the shit is. They are not units you should think in when designing your application, because they are not a component framework. They don't solve a single problem I would have when creating an app. If things like web components did not exist, your customers would not run a wide array of different technologies, all doing the same thing in slightly different but equally shitty ways.

epolanski 2y ago
We maintain a wide array of b2c, internal and b2b products built in different periods. There is no solution to embed additional common functionality that has to stay consistent besides iframes or web components. The only alternative would be to implement the solution and all of its patches over and over. I'm glad you don't have that problem, but if you have sensible alternatives I'm all ears.
- auggierose 2y ago
  Just supply a JavaScript module that creates the component. That's what you would do if there were no web components. And it is more flexible, too. Now that web components are part of the standard, they might be the more convenient solution for distributing components to heterogeneous environments, and allow for nicer packaging. But the price tag for that slightly nicer packaging is too high, and web components should not exist in the first place. Also, nobody in their right mind will make web components manually, you will need a higher-level framework from which you can generate web components. And I think one of the creators of such a framework gave you his opinion on this. To summarise: web components are shit. The world would be a better place without them and the bloat of ill-thought out specs they bring.

epolanski 2y ago

We maintain a wide array of b2c, internal and b2b products built in different periods. There is no solution to embed additional common functionality that has to stay consistent besides iframes or web components. The only alternative would be to implement the solution and all of its patches over and over. I'm glad you don't have that problem, but if you have sensible alternatives I'm all ears.

auggierose 2y ago
Just supply a JavaScript module that creates the component. That's what you would do if there were no web components. And it is more flexible, too. Now that web components are part of the standard, they might be the more convenient solution for distributing components to heterogeneous environments, and allow for nicer packaging. But the price tag for that slightly nicer packaging is too high, and web components should not exist in the first place. Also, nobody in their right mind will make web components manually, you will need a higher-level framework from which you can generate web components. And I think one of the creators of such a framework gave you his opinion on this. To summarise: web components are shit. The world would be a better place without them and the bloat of ill-thought out specs they bring.