41–50 of 200 posts
Alternate title: The fractured state of web UI design explained using a simple counter. I say that only slightly in jest, as it is a neat way to show all (or most) of your options. Although it doesn't have my at-the-moment favorite way to make web components, blazor/web assembly. For me, it's made front-end development fun again, which I haven't enjoyed in a long time.
> fractured Compared to the myriad ways for different cultures to make chicken with rice, this is nothing.
is there any reason you can't write a web component with a block, a block, and a bunch of html? the wedging everything into js is messy, to say the least. it seems the main benefit is being reusable and tightly scoped, but with randomized class names, you could tightly scope the aforementioned bundle as well. even better would be if html added 'for' attributes to and tags, like labels have, so you could target nodes…
That's why you want an additional layer like Angular2+ taking care of that.
1. size of framework javascript required to load first
2. tooling to compile. For example, the Vue.js works without tooling, but the React w/Class requires command line tools to build before the site is ready. That's a HUGE difference, IMHO.
is there any reason you can't write a web component with a block, a block, and a bunch of html? the wedging everything into js is messy, to say the least. it seems the main benefit is being reusable and tightly scoped, but with randomized class names, you could tightly scope the aforementioned bundle as well. even better would be if html added 'for' attributes to and tags, like labels have, so you could target nodes…
is there any reason you can't write a web component with a block, a block, and a bunch of html? the wedging everything into js is messy, to say the least. it seems the main benefit is being reusable and tightly scoped, but with randomized class names, you could tightly scope the aforementioned bundle as well. even better would be if html added 'for' attributes to and tags, like labels have, so you could target nodes…
This is exactly how vue.js "single file components" work - a with the "bunch of html", and optional blocks.
• Global definitions force unique names for every component
• String templates lack syntax highlighting and require ugly slashes for multiline HTML
• No CSS support means that while HTML and JavaScript are modularized into components, CSS is conspicuously left out
• No build step restricts us to HTML and ES5 JavaScript, rather than preprocessors like Pug (formerly Jade) and Babel
I actually developed a framework myself in LotusScript ;)
It is very interesting that it includes the build size including compressed size, it makes me thing that one of the reasons that we don't have a popular repository of interchangable Webcomponents yet, is that if you commit to a framework to make things easier, then the size of the bundle is easier to justify if you keep all the components made within the same framework. Importing components that have been made with d…
is there any reason you can't write a web component with a block, a block, and a bunch of html? the wedging everything into js is messy, to say the least. it seems the main benefit is being reusable and tightly scoped, but with randomized class names, you could tightly scope the aforementioned bundle as well. even better would be if html added 'for' attributes to and tags, like labels have, so you could target nodes…
is there any reason you can't write a web component with a block, a block, and a bunch of html? the wedging everything into js is messy, to say the least. it seems the main benefit is being reusable and tightly scoped, but with randomized class names, you could tightly scope the aforementioned bundle as well. even better would be if html added 'for' attributes to and tags, like labels have, so you could target nodes…
is there any reason you can't write a web component with a block, a block, and a bunch of html? the wedging everything into js is messy, to say the least. it seems the main benefit is being reusable and tightly scoped, but with randomized class names, you could tightly scope the aforementioned bundle as well. even better would be if html added 'for' attributes to and tags, like labels have, so you could target nodes…