4 ms·

> Because there's nothing in the web standards to do it otherwise. Sure there is. We've been manipulating the DOM with JavaScript since the dawn of the web, wh

by imiric 1y ago

> Because there's nothing in the web standards to do it otherwise. Sure there is. We've been manipulating the DOM with JavaScript since the dawn of the web, which later projects like jQuery made more ergonomic. There are a bunch of JS libraries that simplify working with the DOM without resorting to writing fake HTML in JavaScript. > Of the frameworks I mentioned none use virtual DOM or diffing. They have all moved to a much more efficient way Oh, right, observables are the way to go. No, wait, hooks are the right approach. No, wait, signals are definitely the future. We expect these trend-chasers to define the future of the web? Give me a break. > Any time you have a dynamic UI, you have state management. That's true, but state management became such a big problem because of the trend of SPAs and fat clients. A lot of this complexity can be mitigated by relying on the server more. At some point, developers became obsessed about not making a traditional HTTP request that would do a full page refresh, and libraries and frameworks sprung to resolve issues that were largely self-imposed. Add to that the ever-evolving nature of the JS ecosystem, and developers constantly one-upping each other and chasing trends, which boils down to the insanity I'm talking about. > It's strange how you completely dismissed Solid, Vue, and Svelte which all offer a different way to build web apps when compared to React, for example. I checked out from keeping track of frontend frameworks years ago. FWIW, I did try early versions of Svelte, and enjoyed the DX, but at the end of the day, the apparent simplicity was a facade that hid insane amounts of black magic in the background to make all of it work. These days with SvelteKit and the changes in Svelte 5, it feels like just another React clone. I have recent experience with Vue, and it is the epitome of everything wrong with modern web development. I just didn't have the time and energy to address it specifically. Again, my issue is not with specific frameworks, but with the whole concept that developers need such behemoth frameworks to build web sites. > Literally the whole reason so many libraries and frameworks have popped over the years, is because no one wants to spend time writing hundreds of lines of code just to properly set up and change some DOM element. That's a strawman. As you can see in this very thread, there are examples of people building advanced interactive web sites without much boilerplate or abstractions. For the remaining rough edges that you may not want to deal with yourself, there are libraries and lightweight frameworks you can choose from. You're not forced to use a monolithic framework. Frameworks are a popular choice because they're trendy, but there are plenty of much simpler alternatives. > Here's just one single example Ah, I'm sure authors of popular frontend frameworks are fair and unbiased... Look, the current web standards, and Web Components in particular, aren't perfect. I'm certainly not a fan of some of the design decisions. But they're tools that in conjunction cover a large amount of functionality that modern web frameworks simply ignore or reinvent. This is what I'm saying is a mistake. > And what, pray tell, does template give you? On its own it's useless. You need some JS to manipulate it, at least. `template` is just one building block. You can use it alongside others to do things frameworks can do, except... without a framework! What a concept, I know. > What do you think Datastar is doing if not literally the same thing. It's not the same thing. That code is standard HTML with JS in data attributes that does get interpreted at runtime, but it's not an HTML-like DSL that gets parsed and compiled into JavaScript—it is HTML. To be clear: I haven't used Datastar, nor dug into its internals. I'm personally not a fan of abusing HTML attributes with JS logic like that, and I prefer how old school frameworks like Backbone and Knockout handle this. My frustrating experience with Vue was partly what motivated me to think about and come up with my own approach, which I linked to above, if you're curious.

palmfacehn 1y ago
>That's true, but state management became such a big problem because of the trend of SPAs and fat clients. I find it strange that so many developers struggle to maintain the state of a page. Then they turn to "magic" frameworks to handle it for them. What's wrong with having a canonical Object or other data structures to represent the state? Why would anyone want a generalized framework to (mis)represent the core model of your application? We've been creating applications with internal state for decades now. GUI applications with an internal state existed before the web. Typically it is achieved via code hygiene and sane abstractions. As an example, the template element keeps your document structure out of your logic. Yet in the modern JS world, display, state and now even the backend are all shoveled together into an unmanageable monstrosity. From this point, even more magic is added to duct tape over the madness. As a result, the accepted norm is now 10mb of cruft to display a static page.
- troupo 1y ago
  State was never easy. GUI apps have struggled with this as well. Hence you have the proliferation of different approaches: MVC, MVVM, various attempts at streams and observables, state machines, flows... All of these came from outside the web world. And, as most things in the web, all these concepts either arrived too late, or couldn't be implemented properly for various reasons. And the problem is exacerbated by the fact that people are trying to push native app paradigms onto what is still a document-rendering system. So where you can have thousands of objects rendered at 120Hz on a mobile phone, the web struggles showing and animating a few hundred nodes even on a desktop computer. So you have to think of all the machinery to change as few DOM nodes as possible. -- As for the difficulty... The difficulty usually comes from people mixing up two concepts: the state of data, and the state of the UI. E.g. while a music player should present data on the currently playing song (state of data), there's a few other things that are UI-only. E.g.: there's a timer running on when to hide the controls (that has to be reset/disabled when a button is pressed)
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    >GUI apps have struggled with this as well And when we made mistakes there, it was usually because we took short cuts instead of respecting clean abstractions. >So you have to think of all the machinery to change as few DOM nodes as possible. This is where I get off the train in regards to JS frontend frameworks. We should know the state our data. We should also know the state of our display components, whether they are canvas elements rendering more complex data or mere tables. KISS principles apply here. "All the machinery" of a framework isn't necessary to handle the synchronization between the two. Especially when it mandates ridiculous build steps, thousands of dependencies, opaque "magic", huge blobs of minified JS and loading spinners. >The difficulty usually comes from people mixing up two concepts: the state of data, and the state of the UI. Agreed 100%. Which is why I like the <template> element. It is a dose of sanity allowing explicit separation of code and document. I suspect this is the other poster's objection to HTML inside of JS.

by imiric 1y ago

palmfacehn 1y ago

>That's true, but state management became such a big problem because of the trend of SPAs and fat clients. I find it strange that so many developers struggle to maintain the state of a page. Then they turn to "magic" frameworks to handle it for them. What's wrong with having a canonical Object or other data structures to represent the state? Why would anyone want a generalized framework to (mis)represent the core model of your application? We've been creating applications with internal state for decades now. GUI applications with an internal state existed before the web. Typically it is achieved via code hygiene and sane abstractions. As an example, the template element keeps your document structure out of your logic. Yet in the modern JS world, display, state and now even the backend are all shoveled together into an unmanageable monstrosity. From this point, even more magic is added to duct tape over the madness. As a result, the accepted norm is now 10mb of cruft to display a static page.

troupo 1y ago
State was never easy. GUI apps have struggled with this as well. Hence you have the proliferation of different approaches: MVC, MVVM, various attempts at streams and observables, state machines, flows... All of these came from outside the web world. And, as most things in the web, all these concepts either arrived too late, or couldn't be implemented properly for various reasons. And the problem is exacerbated by the fact that people are trying to push native app paradigms onto what is still a document-rendering system. So where you can have thousands of objects rendered at 120Hz on a mobile phone, the web struggles showing and animating a few hundred nodes even on a desktop computer. So you have to think of all the machinery to change as few DOM nodes as possible. -- As for the difficulty... The difficulty usually comes from people mixing up two concepts: the state of data, and the state of the UI. E.g. while a music player should present data on the currently playing song (state of data), there's a few other things that are UI-only. E.g.: there's a timer running on when to hide the controls (that has to be reset/disabled when a button is pressed)
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  >GUI apps have struggled with this as well And when we made mistakes there, it was usually because we took short cuts instead of respecting clean abstractions. >So you have to think of all the machinery to change as few DOM nodes as possible. This is where I get off the train in regards to JS frontend frameworks. We should know the state our data. We should also know the state of our display components, whether they are canvas elements rendering more complex data or mere tables. KISS principles apply here. "All the machinery" of a framework isn't necessary to handle the synchronization between the two. Especially when it mandates ridiculous build steps, thousands of dependencies, opaque "magic", huge blobs of minified JS and loading spinners. >The difficulty usually comes from people mixing up two concepts: the state of data, and the state of the UI. Agreed 100%. Which is why I like the <template> element. It is a dose of sanity allowing explicit separation of code and document. I suspect this is the other poster's objection to HTML inside of JS.