3 ms·

> Yes, it would be simplificantly simpler to edit html > if it wasn't stuck in between two strings > ... > m("body class='application", ... You wo

by danneu 13y ago

> Yes, it would be simplificantly simpler to edit html > if it wasn't stuck in between two strings > ... > m("body class='application", ... You would put attributes in an object. m("body", {class: "application"}, [ ... ]) Sure, it's no Lisp, but to me it's just Javascript's commas that suck the thunder out of it.

insin 13y ago
This is exactly why JSX is such a big win for this method of creating content - it's just sugar for the same function calls, but expressed in a form we're already used to multiply-nesting, with closing tags to help keep context and no need for commas when you need to break a line. Quite neat that you can use it for non-React stuff just by tweaking the pragma comment the JSX transformer requires. Here's an actual example of a Bootstrap table in a React component using JSX: https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/components/steps/QuoteInfo.jsx https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/component... There's not much display logic in it, so it doesn't exhibit the usual progression I've seen when writing React components so far, in which most display logic happens up-front in a component's render() and often gets moved into another method and called directly from where it's going to go in the structure being returned from render(), so you generally don't end up with huge whacks of JSX in components which are doing more work.
- chc 13y ago
 To be clear, my example wouldn't actually work. I had a brain fart about JSX's output format. Sorry about that. I do think it would be pretty easy to adapt it to this format, though (it looks like you'd just need to change one line in the visitReactTag() function).
 - zpao 13y ago
 You could actually do this without a single change to the JSX transform, and instead just make a simple object that calls m() with the right params. Then you just change the @jsx pragma to point at that object. With a complete array of elements this should mostly work. ```js / @jsx m.dom */ function m(type, props, children) { // assuming m() looks something like this. return { type: type, props: props, children: children}; } m.render = function(lwDOM){ console.log(lwDOM)}; m.dom = {}; // React hard codes this array so we can do something like this to build the mapping ['a', 'span'].forEach((el) => { m.dom[el] = function(props, ...args) { return m.call(null, el, props, args); } }); m.render( <a href={"google.com"}> hello world </a> ); ```

by danneu 13y ago

insin 13y ago

This is exactly why JSX is such a big win for this method of creating content - it's just sugar for the same function calls, but expressed in a form we're already used to multiply-nesting, with closing tags to help keep context and no need for commas when you need to break a line. Quite neat that you can use it for non-React stuff just by tweaking the pragma comment the JSX transformer requires. Here's an actual example of a Bootstrap table in a React component using JSX: https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/components/steps/QuoteInfo.jsx https://github.com/insin/lifequote/blob/master/src/component... There's not much display logic in it, so it doesn't exhibit the usual progression I've seen when writing React components so far, in which most display logic happens up-front in a component's render() and often gets moved into another method and called directly from where it's going to go in the structure being returned from render(), so you generally don't end up with huge whacks of JSX in components which are doing more work.

chc 13y ago
To be clear, my example wouldn't actually work. I had a brain fart about JSX's output format. Sorry about that. I do think it would be pretty easy to adapt it to this format, though (it looks like you'd just need to change one line in the visitReactTag() function).
- zpao 13y ago
 You could actually do this without a single change to the JSX transform, and instead just make a simple object that calls m() with the right params. Then you just change the @jsx pragma to point at that object. With a complete array of elements this should mostly work. ```js / @jsx m.dom */ function m(type, props, children) { // assuming m() looks something like this. return { type: type, props: props, children: children}; } m.render = function(lwDOM){ console.log(lwDOM)}; m.dom = {}; // React hard codes this array so we can do something like this to build the mapping ['a', 'span'].forEach((el) => { m.dom[el] = function(props, ...args) { return m.call(null, el, props, args); } }); m.render( <a href={"google.com"}> hello world </a> ); ```