4 ms·

"Complex mini app" is one hell of a concept.

• skydhash 2mo ago
  It can be. Think something like a file viewer or a text editor, or a music players. You can probably make do with vanilla javascript, but there’s some threshold where using react to take care of the state<=>ui relationship is worth it.
  • asdfsa32 2mo ago
    A text editor or music player is hardly "mini". Again, the issue with htmx is that it pretends like it is not a framework, when in fact, it is just a second attempt at angular 1.0, with even more naive assumptions about web apps.
    • stymaar 2mo ago
      > A text editor or music player is hardly "mini". If it's a sub-function of a bigger ensemble that mostly dies something else then it's fine to call them “mini apps”. For instance a bank app may contain a text editor for the internal messaging feature of the app, that would count as a min-app in that context.
    • sgt 2mo ago
      Having adopted Angular 1 back when it was new, I can promise you it's completely different than Htmx.
      • asdf88990 2mo ago
        What is the main difference?
        • sgt 2mo ago
          The main difference is that htmx is server driven, and it's HATEOAS (hypermedia driven). Angular was always client side only with data binding and state management. So as far as frameworks go, they are pretty much as different as they come.
          • asdfsa32 2mo ago
            Where code runs is a small, albeit important, part. Whatever you use "Hypermedia" or JSON to communicate the state is only part of the story. What makes HTMX a second attempt at Angular 1.0 is in how it handles mutating the HTML, you know, the key aspect of a web app. Splitting some of the FE to backend to allow room for the spaghetti we had back in the CGI/PHP day isn't a win.