Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

daggerjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#51

Post by TonyPeakman »

omtinez wrote: post #27

Nice work! I'm also a fan of the runtime only frameworks. They might not be as efficient as the compiled counterparts on paper, but in my experience the performance loss is almost negligible compared to the rest of the stack. Shameless plug to my own runtime (and compile) micro framework: https://github.com/fresho-dev/mancha

Thanks! Totally agree — in most real-world apps the “runtime overhead” ends up dwarfed by everything else in the stack, so the build-free ergonomics can be a bigger win.

And nice, Mancha looks cool — I’ll give it a read and star. It looks similar with dagger in some features, for instance, mancha uses :data to create scope while dagger uses +load directive. Always great to see other takes on the runtime/compile spectrum; I think having multiple approaches out there is healthy for the ecosystem!

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#52

Post by Arch-TK »

mkoryak wrote: post #7

Seems neat. I wouldn't use it for personal stuff because I'd be afraid of getting locked into a framework that might not exist next year. Once this project is about a year old, if it still has any commits, then I'd consider it.

What is the risk here?

Are you worried that in a year it will be missing a feature you want?

It's client side javascript, aside from DOM based XSS (which if reported, you can probably fix yourself), there isn't much to worry about from the security perspective. The web doesn't normally deprecate things so it's probably going to work in a year too.

This is a tiny project which already requires that you know JavaScript, so you can't even claim that you can't maintain it because you don't know the implementation language. It doesn't depend on some build step (which often is the thing that breaks after a year).

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#53

Post by TonyPeakman »

Nickersf wrote: post #28
ivape wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last decade gave us enough JavaScript for a lifetime.

Exactly, we also have to think about support and maintenance when building and shipping products. It's always nice to play with new things to keep the learning fresh and see what people are up to. I started with php and .NET Framework ASP and in the early-mid 2010's when the reactive JS frameworks started coming around I just never found my jive with them and just started working at C#/.NET shops and am using Blazor…

Really appreciate you taking the time to look through the docs and write such a thoughtful comment. You’re right — JavaScript carries a lot of quirks and limitations that aren’t going away, and if you’re building full-scale business apps in the .NET ecosystem, Blazor is a very natural fit.

dagger.js isn’t trying to compete with that class of frameworks. The goal is much narrower: keep a build-free, HTML-first option around for cases where shipping something lightweight, inspectable, and easy to embed is more important than squeezing out type safety or runtime guarantees.

I completely agree that we don’t need everybody moving deeper into JS just for the sake of it. But I do think there’s value in keeping a spectrum of tools alive — from strongly-typed/.NET style systems to small runtime-only JS libraries — so developers can pick the right trade-off for their domain.

Thanks again for the honest feedback; it helps clarify where this approach makes sense (and where it doesn’t).

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#54

Post by TonyPeakman »

mkoryak wrote: post #7

Seems neat. I wouldn't use it for personal stuff because I'd be afraid of getting locked into a framework that might not exist next year. Once this project is about a year old, if it still has any commits, then I'd consider it.

Totally fair — longevity is a real concern, and I’ve had the same hesitation with new tools myself.

The nice thing about Dagger.js is that it’s intentionally very small and HTML-first. If the project disappeared tomorrow, your markup is still just plain HTML + attributes, and your components are still standard Web Components. There’s very little “lock-in” compared to bigger frameworks with proprietary syntax or build pipelines.

That said, I do intend to keep it alive — it’s under active development on GitHub, MIT licensed, and easy for others to fork or extend. If a year from now it still looks useful, I’d be glad for you (and others) to take another look.:)

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#55

Post by TonyPeakman »

Arch-TK wrote: post #52
mkoryak wrote: post #7

Seems neat. I wouldn't use it for personal stuff because I'd be afraid of getting locked into a framework that might not exist next year. Once this project is about a year old, if it still has any commits, then I'd consider it.

What is the risk here? Are you worried that in a year it will be missing a feature you want? It's client side javascript, aside from DOM based XSS (which if reported, you can probably fix yourself), there isn't much to worry about from the security perspective. The web doesn't normally deprecate things so it's probably going to work in a year too. This is a tiny project which already requires that you know JavaScript…

Exactly — that’s a good way to frame it. One of the reasons I kept Dagger.js tiny and runtime-only was to minimize those risks: no exotic build chain that might break, and nothing beyond plain JS/HTML that the web already guarantees to keep working. HTML + Web Components + a few attributes. That’s about as low-lock-in as a framework can get.

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#56

Post by TonyPeakman »

mdaniel wrote: post #10
pylotlight wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worked for me. See also: https://github.com/dagger8224/dagger.js

I'd guess people are getting different results because of the varying A records https://dns.google/query?name=daggerjs.org https://www.whois.com/whois/3.33.130.190 and https://www.whois.com/whois/15.197.148.33 are AWS https://www.whois.com/whois/185.199.109.153 and similar are GitHub and is almost certainly this repo https://github.com/dagger8224/dagger8224.github.io/blob/main...

Good catch — thanks for digging into that. You’re right: the domain still has a mix of A records (AWS + GitHub Pages), which explains why some people see different results.

I have removed the broken A records and the site works normally now. Appreciate the pointers and links

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#57

Post by TonyPeakman »

nivethan wrote: post #11

Is this aimed at being in the same role as petite-vue and alpinejs? They also don't have a build step. I've started to think something like petite-vue and twind would let you build small internal tools quickly, there are some major downsides to it which is why I haven't committed yet.

Yeah, that’s a fair comparison — Dagger.js lives in a similar space to petite-vue / Alpine: no build step, HTML-first, sprinkle behaviors where you need them.

The main differences are:

pure declarative mode → there is zero API and third-party code & tool dependency.

Web Components first → you can wrap functionality as native Custom Elements and Dagger will happily coexist.

Directive model → simple +click, +load, etc., instead of reactivity syntax or x- attributes.

Distributed modules → small script modules you can drop in from a CDN when you need them.

So it’s playing the same role (buildless, quick internal tools / embeds), but with a slightly different philosophy: keep everything view-source-able and make WC interop a first-class story.

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#58

Post by TonyPeakman »

mythz wrote: post #17
nivethan wrote: post #11

Is this aimed at being in the same role as petite-vue and alpinejs? They also don't have a build step. I've started to think something like petite-vue and twind would let you build small internal tools quickly, there are some major downsides to it which is why I haven't committed yet.

Using the full vue.js doesn't have a build step either. I started out developing UIs using petite-vue, unfortunately ended up rewriting it to use full Vue.js after running into too many of its limitations and issues, which given that it's abandon-ware wont ever be resolved. As such I'd strongly recommend against starting projects with PetiteVue and just use the ESM build of Vue.js which also doesn't require a build s…

That’s a good point — the ESM build of Vue is solid, actively maintained, and does give you a no-build setup with the full feature set.

dagger.js aims a bit differently: it’s even smaller in scope (no virtual DOM, no reactivity system, no SFCs), and is designed to pair directly with Web Components and plain HTML snippets. The trade-off is fewer features, but also less surface area and almost zero “lock-in” — you can literally view-source and drop it into a page.

So I see them as different tiers on the same spectrum: Vue (ESM) if you want a mature, batteries-included framework without a bundler; Dagger.js if you just want minimal runtime directives and WC interop with almost no moving parts.

Appreciate you sharing the blog link — I’ll check it out. Always happy to see more people pushing the “modern JS without a toolchain” approach.

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#59

Post by TonyPeakman »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #42
mythz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the full vue.js doesn't have a build step either. I started out developing UIs using petite-vue, unfortunately ended up rewriting it to use full Vue.js after running into too many of its limitations and issues, which given that it's abandon-ware wont ever be resolved. As such I'd strongly recommend against starting projects with PetiteVue and just use the ESM build of Vue.js which also doesn't require a build s…

If I had to use one of these modern JS frameworks, I think Vue without build step would be one of the candidates. No shitty webpack configuring, no minimizer, no bundler, no friggin uglyfier, no juggling modules. None of the crap, just write your JS and serve the script, done.

Totally agree — the ESM build of Vue gives you a great “no-bundler” experience with a full framework behind it.

dagger.js sits in the same no-build space, but deliberately strips it down even further: no VDOM, no reactive system, no SFCs. Just HTML with attributes like +click / +load, and it plays nicely with native Web Components. The trade-off is fewer features, but also less surface area and almost nothing to configure.

So if Vue ESM is “full-featured without the tooling overhead,” dagger.js is more like “minimal glue you can drop in via when you want to stay as close to plain HTML/JS as possible.”

Re: Show HN: Dagger.js – A buildless, runtime-only JavaScript micro-framework

#60

Post by TonyPeakman »

wffurr wrote: post #13

Seems like it’s been a while since a new JS framework landed on the front page.

Haha, true — the front page doesn’t always need another JS framework

dagger.js is tiny and pretty niche compared to the “big ones,” but I figured it was worth sharing since it’s trying to go backward a bit: no build, plain HTML, Web Components. More of a “view-source-able” experiment than a contender for the next React/Vue.

Post reply on HN