51–60 of 135 posts
"No import dumpster at the top of each file. Forget imports even existed. Just access whatever you want, wherever you want. TypeScript knows where to find it."
This is a bizarre preference. Is there some reason the JS community has turned against explicitly listing what libraries are used by a module?
"No known bugs" is not the brag that they think it is. It's like someone peddling a medication and saying, "No known side effects."
it's like someone collected all my least favorite coding styles in a single library
...what?
Are people actually using 3rd party hosted CDN scripts for anything even remotely serious in production?
I understand some of the disparaging replies i regards to execution, but if I'm honest, as someone who writes a lot of React, the idea of ditching it for a universally support standard of any kind, is a very appealing idea.
RawJS ain't it.
If anything, React' JSX is the universally supported standard these days :)
Apparently the author has it out for import statements. "No import dumpster at the top of each file. Forget imports even existed. Just access whatever you want, wherever you want. TypeScript knows where to find it." This is a bizarre preference. Is there some reason the JS community has turned against explicitly listing what libraries are used by a module?
https://medium.com/@arannadelwar361/embracing-the-power-of-r... https://dev.to/paulgordon/after-using-rawjs-im-never-touchin... Both links helped to explain, the landing page is indeed not very good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The demo is here. https://rawjssample.pages.dev/ I immediately see that it ~hijacks my back button~ fills my back-stack such that I can't use the back button normally. Doesn't look promising.
Anything that is supposed to replace web UI frameworks needs to be able to perform client side routing. You can argue that the different colors shouldn't represent a push to history, but that's a criticism of the implementation, not the library.
Maybe it's just a poor demo, are there better examples?
I understand some of the disparaging replies i regards to execution, but if I'm honest, as someone who writes a lot of React, the idea of ditching it for a universally support standard of any kind, is a very appealing idea.
> ditching it for a universally support standard of any kind RawJS ain't it. If anything, React' JSX is the universally supported standard these days :)
$.append
The example almost reads like a parody, here's a half dozen lines to write what you could write in one line of raw html:
Somehow they think they've found a worthwhile middle ground between just calling the DOM API and using Jquery. I don't agree that targetting that is a worthwhile endeavour. It's almost avoiding the DOM API for the sake of it, and tying yourself to a library without many benefits.
p.s. Having had the concept of writing "Vanilla JS" hijacked by a library author, now writing "Raw JS" is too.
Any day now we can maybe expect a new "Libraryless" framework.