3 ms·

As someone that dabbles in stuff, I found htmx to be amazing up to the point where I need to find out why a specific logic loop isn't working, or need to do som

As someone that dabbles in stuff, I found htmx to be amazing up to the point where I need to find out why a specific logic loop isn't working, or need to do something that's slightly off-piste. Which is to say it's incredibly useful for simpler websites but difficult for anything past 1000 lines. but i may just be using it wrong!

djeastm 1y ago
I had a similar experience. There was a point where my expectations became greater than my skill. Whatever simplicity I started with, I kept wanting more interactivity. I kept having to ask myself, "ok, now am I going to implement THAT in HTMX?" and I'd figure out some clever solution that worked... but only just. I also could never quickly refactor or move things around without a headache. Skill issue, possibly... So I ended up rewriting in React, which overall has been just better to meet the ever increasing interactivity requirements of my site and also my preferred workflow.
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  Nothing is stopping one from adding a bit of javascript when needed. Or complimenting with something like alpine or jquery.
  - CooCooCaCha 1y ago
    This is why I never understood htmx. Vanilla react is pretty easy to get started with, you just create a root component and mount it to a DOM element. Maybe 10 lines of code. Then you can go as simple or as complex as you want without having to awkwardly rig it up to another UI system.
    - mixmastamyk 1y ago
      Htmx (re)uses html and doesn’t require learning a new paradigm or loading heavyweight libs.
      - troupo 1y ago
        Except it requires learning a bunch of new paradigms including a full on custom DSL, and requires loading a library that is that is at best as heavy as most competition
        mixmastamyk 1y ago
        Not at all, simple things are simple.
        troupo 1y ago
        Simple things are simple everywhere. And then suddenly you need to be aware of the quirks: https://htmx.org/quirks/ https://htmx.org/quirks/ And then you need your backend to handle all the weird new headers: https://htmx.org/reference/#request_headers https://htmx.org/reference/#request_headers And then you need to learn completely non-HTML things like "attribute inheritance" https://htmx.org/docs/#inheritance https://htmx.org/docs/#inheritance And then you need to learn a whole new DSL https://htmx.org/docs/#trigger-modifiers https://htmx.org/docs/#trigger-modifiers HTMX probably has more concepts than react at this point in time.
        mixmastamyk 1y ago
        These examples are trivial and/or rare, especially in comparison to the monstrosity of a SPA framework. I picked up htmx in an hour or two. I do think it is a bit overengineered however, though there are other implementations of the idea.
        troupo 1y ago
        > comparison to the monstrosity of a SPA What you call "monstrosity" is just as trivial and rare. See how this works? You claimed that HTMX doesn't require learning new paradigms. When it's actually a new paradigm replete with multiple different requirements, custom DSLs, new behaviors etc.

djeastm 1y ago

I had a similar experience. There was a point where my expectations became greater than my skill. Whatever simplicity I started with, I kept wanting more interactivity. I kept having to ask myself, "ok, now am I going to implement THAT in HTMX?" and I'd figure out some clever solution that worked... but only just. I also could never quickly refactor or move things around without a headache. Skill issue, possibly... So I ended up rewriting in React, which overall has been just better to meet the ever increasing interactivity requirements of my site and also my preferred workflow.

mixmastamyk 1y ago
Nothing is stopping one from adding a bit of javascript when needed. Or complimenting with something like alpine or jquery.
- CooCooCaCha 1y ago
  This is why I never understood htmx. Vanilla react is pretty easy to get started with, you just create a root component and mount it to a DOM element. Maybe 10 lines of code. Then you can go as simple or as complex as you want without having to awkwardly rig it up to another UI system.
  - mixmastamyk 1y ago
    Htmx (re)uses html and doesn’t require learning a new paradigm or loading heavyweight libs.
    - troupo 1y ago
      Except it requires learning a bunch of new paradigms including a full on custom DSL, and requires loading a library that is that is at best as heavy as most competition
      - mixmastamyk 1y ago
        Not at all, simple things are simple.
        troupo 1y ago
        Simple things are simple everywhere. And then suddenly you need to be aware of the quirks: https://htmx.org/quirks/ https://htmx.org/quirks/ And then you need your backend to handle all the weird new headers: https://htmx.org/reference/#request_headers https://htmx.org/reference/#request_headers And then you need to learn completely non-HTML things like "attribute inheritance" https://htmx.org/docs/#inheritance https://htmx.org/docs/#inheritance And then you need to learn a whole new DSL https://htmx.org/docs/#trigger-modifiers https://htmx.org/docs/#trigger-modifiers HTMX probably has more concepts than react at this point in time.
        mixmastamyk 1y ago
        These examples are trivial and/or rare, especially in comparison to the monstrosity of a SPA framework. I picked up htmx in an hour or two. I do think it is a bit overengineered however, though there are other implementations of the idea.
        troupo 1y ago
        > comparison to the monstrosity of a SPA What you call "monstrosity" is just as trivial and rare. See how this works? You claimed that HTMX doesn't require learning new paradigms. When it's actually a new paradigm replete with multiple different requirements, custom DSLs, new behaviors etc.