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

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

#91

Post by TonyPeakman » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 12:36 AM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #89

TonyPeakman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks a lot for the detailed suggestions — this is super helpful. You’re right that symbols like +/ /@ aren’t valid in XML/XHTML, and the original idea was just to keep things as short and stackable as possible. But I see the value in a more standard, semantic form like lifecycle.load, control.value, event.click, meta.raw. It’s clearer, easier to search, and plays nicely with stricter environments. I’m leaning towar…

your positive responses make me wish i had an opportunity to build my next site with it. not ready for that yet, but hopefully when i get some time to work on my aurelia side project again, i can try making a second version using dagger.js. actually in recent weeks i have been thinking about building simple sites with just vanilla js, but with some custom functions to enable binding and routing which is the most impo…

Thank you — that really means a lot to me. One of the best parts of sharing dagger.js has been hearing from people like you who’ve been down the same path and thought about building the same set of features. It makes me feel like the project is on the right track.

What you described with vanilla JS plus a few helpers is exactly how dagger.js started — I just wanted to save myself (and hopefully others) from having to reinvent the same binding and routing layer every time.

If you ever try it out on your side project, I’d be truly grateful to hear how it feels. Feedback from thoughtful developers like you is what helps me make it better.

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

#92

Post by mkoryak » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 6:51 PM UTC

TonyPeakman wrote: post #85

mkoryak wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are places to find worse code, but this isn't what I would call clean, readable code. Some of it feels like it was written with the goal of not pressing enter. Can I read it and debug it? Certainly. Do I want to? Certainly not.

Thanks to both of you for the thoughtful discussion — I really appreciate seeing different perspectives here. On the “lock-in” concern: that’s a fair point. dagger.js is still young, and it’s reasonable to be cautious with any new project. One of the core goals, though, is low lock-in: your code is still just HTML + JS + Web Components. Even if dagger.js disappeared tomorrow, your markup would continue to work with m…

no prob. I have written code like that, and there is some allure to cram as much logic as possible into a single line.

The problem is that the nice feeling you get from writing it is inversely proportional to the nice feeling I have when reading it.

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

#93

Post by TonyPeakman » Wed, Sep 24, 2025, 3:46 AM UTC

mkoryak wrote: post #92

TonyPeakman wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to both of you for the thoughtful discussion — I really appreciate seeing different perspectives here. On the “lock-in” concern: that’s a fair point. dagger.js is still young, and it’s reasonable to be cautious with any new project. One of the core goals, though, is low lock-in: your code is still just HTML + JS + Web Components. Even if dagger.js disappeared tomorrow, your markup would continue to work with m…

no prob. I have written code like that, and there is some allure to cram as much logic as possible into a single line. The problem is that the nice feeling you get from writing it is inversely proportional to the nice feeling I have when reading it.

Haha, that’s a great way to put it . Writing one-line code does feel clever in the moment, but you’re right, the “writer’s joy” often turns into the “reader’s pain.” Striking the balance between elegance and readability is the real art of coding.