Oh.. and another one.
Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
11–20 of 236 posts
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#12Precompilation is cool, but please don't imply that your framework is the first to do it. Precompiled templates significantly predate HTML, they were common in the mainframe world. In the HTML world there are tons of other templaters that allow precompilation. Handlebars is a common one: http://handlebarsjs.com/precompilation.html
This is a huge part of Javascript fatigue for me. I love the fact that we're recycling old concepts and mashing them up to get constant improvements and better tooling. It's the relentless hype and pretending that everything is new that really gets to me.
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#13Precompilation is cool, but please don't imply that your framework is the first to do it. Precompiled templates significantly predate HTML, they were common in the mainframe world. In the HTML world there are tons of other templaters that allow precompilation. Handlebars is a common one: http://handlebarsjs.com/precompilation.html This is a huge part of Javascript fatigue for me. I love the fact that we're recycling…
Handlebars templates have a runtime dependency (even when precompiled). Svelte does not.
Also, a precompiled Handlebars template is just a function for outputting an HTML string (with a runtime dependency). By comparison, the compiled Svelte output is a dependency-free JavaScript module for a dynamic view, which knows how (and when) to granularly update the browser DOM in response to state changes. It's unprecedented.
Check out the output from this SVG Clock demo: https://svelte.technology/repl/?gist=44e20b4e0224617d228e3c3...
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#14This looks nice: a Javascript framework for expressing _concepts_ that compiles down to vanilla JS. It looks like it ships a lot less code to the user. From the project's first [blog post]( https://svelte.technology/blog/frameworks-without-the-framew... ): > The Svelte implementation of TodoMVC weighs 3.6kb zipped. For comparison, React plus ReactDOM without any app code weighs about 45kb zipped. It takes about 10x a…
I didn't study the thing, but the first question that comes to my mind is: if each component is rendered as a self contained piece of vanilla js, isn't the size of an app with lots of components going to increase much faster than with the library approach?
A complete library by itself can be pretty big, but it stays the same size no matter how many components you add.
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#15Love it. I think the most discussion-worthy quote I found in the docs is this:
> It's currently fashionable to avoid two-way binding on the grounds that it creates all sorts of hard-to-debug problems and slows your application down, and that a one-way top-down data flow is 'easier to reason about'. This is in fact high grade nonsense. It's true that two-way binding done badly has all sorts of issues, and that very large apps benefit from the discipline of a not permitting deeply nested components to muck about with state that might affect distant parts of the app. But when used correctly, two-way binding simplifies things greatly.
I wonder what the author considers "used correctly" and "done badly" and how Svelte approaches this.
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#16Love it. I think the most discussion-worthy quote I found in the docs is this: > It's currently fashionable to avoid two-way binding on the grounds that it creates all sorts of hard-to-debug problems and slows your application down, and that a one-way top-down data flow is 'easier to reason about'. This is in fact high grade nonsense. It's true that two-way binding done badly has all sorts of issues, and that very la…
Yes.
I have the feeling most programmers are just lazy, that's why they use 2WB.
And I can't blame them. Redux is much more boilerplate than MobX, for example.
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#17https://svelte.technology/guide
For how it actually looks.
Interestingly, it shares most similarities to vue. I guess vue is winning mindshare.
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#18The 'Mustaches' bit killed it for me, but up until then I was enjoying the simplicity of the API. I like React (and React-like implementations) because of being able to use JS to build up a view
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#19The 'Mustaches' bit killed it for me, but up until then I was enjoying the simplicity of the API. I like React (and React-like implementations) because of being able to use JS to build up a view
React also uses curly braces for interpolation, not that different.
Re: Svelte – A UI framework that compiles into tiny standalone JavaScript modules
#20This looks nice: a Javascript framework for expressing _concepts_ that compiles down to vanilla JS. It looks like it ships a lot less code to the user. From the project's first [blog post]( https://svelte.technology/blog/frameworks-without-the-framew... ): > The Svelte implementation of TodoMVC weighs 3.6kb zipped. For comparison, React plus ReactDOM without any app code weighs about 45kb zipped. It takes about 10x a…
I didn't study the thing, but the first question that comes to my mind is: if each component is rendered as a self contained piece of vanilla js, isn't the size of an app with lots of components going to increase much faster than with the library approach? A complete library by itself can be pretty big, but it stays the same size no matter how many components you add.
[deleted]