KatrinaKitten

4 ms·

1.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
I presumed, but either way you still have to consider that React's "6.4kb" is without any of the actual building blocks a web app will need, just the absolute bare minimum of what React itself needs.
2.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
React is also not 6.4kb, it's 316kb for base React + 4.5mb for React DOM + who knows how much for any other library you decide to use.
3.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
HTMX does not promise to "do away with" client-side code. In many cases, you don't need or need significantly less JavaScript in an HTMX codebase than in other alternatives, but the point is not to use no JavaScript, but ra
4.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
Slight correction - <output> is not inert for users who use screen readers, though in this case it shouldn't cause issues. If you need an actual inert element, use a div.
5.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
I'm a big fan of HTMX and it heavily inspired Ajaxial from top to bottom. In fact, until it started diverging more significantly, it originally began as "HTMX but fixing the things I don't like". From a functional standp
6.
Show HN: Ajaxial – Painless, JavaScript-Free Ajax(github.com)
1 points by KatrinaKitten 3y ago|2 comments
7.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
While you certainly could do this, a major benefit of web components is that you get all of this for free out of the box. It's less error/mistake prone, keeps your code cleaner and more obvious exactly what it does, etc.
8.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
Thanks for filling my "only read the headline and made a snarky comment anyway" bingo square!
9.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
I actually recently contributed Shadow DOM support to the HTMX cobebase for 2.0! Once that drops, linking Facet and HTMX will only take a simple mixin. <template mixin="htmx" global> <script on="connect&q
10.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
Not exactly. While they can be used in tandem, I'm not necessarily suggesting that they should be; rather, the two serve different purposes and solve different problems. A framework component is effectively a reusable block of code. It
11.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
How so? I'm more than happy to take constructive criticism, but without specifics there's not much I can do.
12.
Show HN: Facet – Declarative Web Components in HTML(github.com)
7 points by KatrinaKitten 3y ago|2 comments
13.
Web Components Aren't Framework Components(kgscialdone.substack.com)
33 points by KatrinaKitten 3y ago|41 comments
14.
Web Components Aren't Framework Components(kgscialdone.substack.com)
2 points by KatrinaKitten 3y ago|0 comments
15.
by KatrinaKitten 3y ago
1. Element styles cause specificity issues. Probably not an issue in most cases you'd use this, but still a relevant consideration. 2. Element styles don't allow you to style child elements, pseudo-selectors, pseudo-elements, etc.