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

Htmx – high power tools for HTML

htmx.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#131

Post by stephenr »

matsemann wrote: post #130
stephenr wrote: post #129

I like the theory of this (that is: using XHR to update parts of a page with the result of requests) I'm immediately turned off by the demo though, because it's relying on a 'fake http server' in the client side JS. If your toy examples can't be run against a real server, I have zero expectation of it working well for non-trivial examples.

"Can't be run against a real server" sounds like a straw man you just made up? I'm astonished about how much you believe you can ascertain based on this... It's a demo, mocking a server is completely fine and also allow them to show it working without relying on other things. I mean, this is actually even better. You can expand the mock-server down below and see what's happening.

Would you buy a car if when you took it for a test drive, it had no engine but instead the salesman sat next to you and made "vrrm vrrm" noises for 20 minutes?

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#132

Post by chewmieser »

stephenr wrote: post #131
matsemann wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can't be run against a real server" sounds like a straw man you just made up? I'm astonished about how much you believe you can ascertain based on this... It's a demo, mocking a server is completely fine and also allow them to show it working without relying on other things. I mean, this is actually even better. You can expand the mock-server down below and see what's happening.

Would you buy a car if when you took it for a test drive, it had no engine but instead the salesman sat next to you and made "vrrm vrrm" noises for 20 minutes?

Are you purchasing this JS library? Does it not make sense to reduce server load in order to reduce the cost of demonstrating a free product?

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#133

Post by stephenr »

chewmieser wrote: post #132
stephenr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you buy a car if when you took it for a test drive, it had no engine but instead the salesman sat next to you and made "vrrm vrrm" noises for 20 minutes?

Are you purchasing this JS library? Does it not make sense to reduce server load in order to reduce the cost of demonstrating a free product?

Using the library is an investment of time, and time is worth money, so yes.

Reducing server load makes sense. Use a CDN or proxy, and aggressively cache responses.

Adding an entirely faked backend response, so that the examples don't actually show the real traffic it would generate is both adding complexity to the demo, and potentially giving a misleading picture of how usable the library is: for all we know, it's too slow to use as the examples show, because a real HTTP request to a backend is going to be slower than a javascript function returning a pre-determined string.

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#134

Post by stephenr »

matsemann wrote: post #130
stephenr wrote: post #129

I like the theory of this (that is: using XHR to update parts of a page with the result of requests) I'm immediately turned off by the demo though, because it's relying on a 'fake http server' in the client side JS. If your toy examples can't be run against a real server, I have zero expectation of it working well for non-trivial examples.

"Can't be run against a real server" sounds like a straw man you just made up? I'm astonished about how much you believe you can ascertain based on this... It's a demo, mocking a server is completely fine and also allow them to show it working without relying on other things. I mean, this is actually even better. You can expand the mock-server down below and see what's happening.

> I mean, this is actually even better. You can expand the mock-server down below and see what's happening.

Developer tools in browsers are a thing that exist, and show you what is actually requested.

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#135

Post by matsemann »

stephenr wrote: post #131
matsemann wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can't be run against a real server" sounds like a straw man you just made up? I'm astonished about how much you believe you can ascertain based on this... It's a demo, mocking a server is completely fine and also allow them to show it working without relying on other things. I mean, this is actually even better. You can expand the mock-server down below and see what's happening.

Would you buy a car if when you took it for a test drive, it had no engine but instead the salesman sat next to you and made "vrrm vrrm" noises for 20 minutes?

You realise that's just another straw man / false comparison, right?

The library is displayed fully functionable, but other parts are mocked. Your example is asinine.

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#137

Post by m-localhost »

dzonga wrote: post #50
recursivedoubts wrote: post #10

hello, I'm the creator of htmx (and originally intercooler) I just released 0.0.4, so htmx is still very young, but it's got a decent test suite: https://htmx.org/test/0.0.4/test/ there is a nice extension mechanism: https://htmx.org/extensions/ and some very rough docs on how to pull off pure HTML animations: https://htmx.org/examples/animations/ happy to answer questions

intercooler looked cool. never got to try it due to jquery dependency. but will definitely give htmx a try. my current project will either be htmx or alpine.js. Thank you for your work, in preventing SPA bloat ie providing an alternative

htmx looks like the perfect thing between UnpolyJS and AlpineJS. In Unpoly I miss the optional clientside templating which htmx seems to support as extension. AlpineJS lacks the http stuff (headers, requests). Really exciting times for using old school html without downloading 5000 js files via npm.

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#138

Post by BareNakedCoder »

stephenr wrote: post #133
chewmieser wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you purchasing this JS library? Does it not make sense to reduce server load in order to reduce the cost of demonstrating a free product?

Using the library is an investment of time, and time is worth money, so yes. Reducing server load makes sense. Use a CDN or proxy, and aggressively cache responses. Adding an entirely faked backend response, so that the examples don't actually show the real traffic it would generate is both adding complexity to the demo, and potentially giving a misleading picture of how usable the library is: for all we know, it's t…

If instead the salesman took you and a car that included an engine out on a test track, would you not buy the car because the test track was fake? You are not buying the test track so you shouldnt care. You are not buying htmx's demo backend either so you shouldnt care.

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#139

Post by stephenr »

BareNakedCoder wrote: post #138
stephenr wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the library is an investment of time, and time is worth money, so yes. Reducing server load makes sense. Use a CDN or proxy, and aggressively cache responses. Adding an entirely faked backend response, so that the examples don't actually show the real traffic it would generate is both adding complexity to the demo, and potentially giving a misleading picture of how usable the library is: for all we know, it's t…

If instead the salesman took you and a car that included an engine out on a test track, would you not buy the car because the test track was fake? You are not buying the test track so you shouldnt care. You are not buying htmx's demo backend either so you shouldnt care.

In your analogy the 'test track' is still close enough to a real road - just as a functional backend providing fake data is real enough to test the functionality.

Re: Htmx – high power tools for HTML

#140

Post by JGM_io »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #35
digitaltrees wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the name htmx better than kutty. Easier to remember and feels more official.

i liked kutty a lot, but it just meant too many things in too many other languages lookin' at you, dutch

Dutchies represent!

Kut-zooi zeg

Post reply on HN