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

Plain Vanilla Web

plainvanillaweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 715 posts

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#161

Post by MrJohz »

spankalee wrote: post #137
90s_dev wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ${x} Fine for x:string, but what about w:WebWorker?

What would you expect that to do, in any framework?

In React, say, I might write
and expect the worker instance to be passed as an object to `MyComponent` as a prop. But with webcomponents, I can't do something like that.

    this.innerHTML = ``
will just stringify the worker and pass that string to the `my-component`. To get the worker instance to be passed correctly, I'd need to do something like

    this.innerHTML = ``
    this.firstChild.worker = worker;

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#162

Post by pests »

rhet0rica wrote: post #150
hdjrudni wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The built-in APIs aren't perfect, but we're talking about something simple as ``` fetch('/my-content').then(async res => { if(res.ok) { document.getElementById('my-element').innerHtml = await res.text(); } }) ``` Something like that. Doesn't get much easier. Gone are the days of browser inconsistencies, at least of you stick to "Baseline Widely available" APIs which is now prominently displayed on MDN.

No-framework web tinkerer here. If I had a nickel for every second of my life I've spent typing document.getElementById, I'd be able to afford new fingers. Should've been renamed to getId() and put in global scope two decades ago, if not three. At least querySelector() is a few characters shorter, but I always feel bad using such an alarmingly overdesigned tool for anything trivial.

You don’t have to call getElementById or querySelector on document. You can narrow the search by starting at a specific node, just most people default into document as it’s already a global.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#163

Post by vaylian »

90s_dev wrote: post #9

I am not sold on web-components yet. Especially now with @scoped and import{type:css}, I think there's still a lot of merit to rendering an element statically, shipping it, and updating it dynamically via modern JS. I'm not sold on how people typically do that, and I think we should keep trying to innovate outside of the typical frameworks like React/Svelte, but I definitely don't see any part of web-components being…

Web components provide a clean abstraction boundary. You can add additional methods to your own tags which can encapsulate the logic for updating the data in the component.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#164

Post by lolinder »

donohoe wrote: post #66

I'm not against frameworks, but in many cases, they're unnecessary. I've always questioned why we should add 100KB of JavaScript to a page before writing a single line of real code. My team and I built https://restofworld.org without any frameworks. The feedback, from surveys, outreach, and unsolicited emails, has been overwhelmingly positive, especially around usability and reading experience. We might adopt a frame…

I think that this comment is a great example of the total disconnect these conversations always have.

On the one hand we have lots of people on here who are building full-featured web apps, not websites, on teams of 30+. These people look at frameworkless options and immediately have a dozen different questions about how your frameworkless design handles a dozen different features that their use case absolutely requires, and the answer is that it doesn't handle those features because it doesn't require them because it's a blog.

Meanwhile there are also a lot of people on here who have never worked on a large-scale web app and wonder why frameworks even exist when it's so obviously easy to build a blog without them.

It would be nice if we could just agree that the web hosts an enormous spectrum of different kinds of software and make it clear what kind of software we're talking about when we were opining about frameworks—whether for or against.

In this case: this is a WordPress blog.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#165

Post by 90s_dev »

spankalee wrote: post #141
skrebbel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't put those in templates though. It's a serious pain and completely unnecessary.

You absolutely can put properties in templates. Web component authors do this all the time. Here's a lit-html template that sets a property: html` `

At that point you're not using HTML anymore, you're just calling html() in a fancy way, and that's the whole point of the complaint, that custom-elements are not good at being plain HTML even though that's like its whole thing.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#167

Post by ilaksh »

braden-lk wrote: post #4

Very cool overview and a great article—it’s fascinating to see how far web components have come. Data passing, interactivity, and state management still seem pretty tedious in vanilla, though!

some people cheat by using web components but with Lit Elements. https://lit.dev/ . I use it with raw JS without any bundling.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#168

Post by dorfsmay »

lolinder wrote: post #164
donohoe wrote: post #66

I'm not against frameworks, but in many cases, they're unnecessary. I've always questioned why we should add 100KB of JavaScript to a page before writing a single line of real code. My team and I built https://restofworld.org without any frameworks. The feedback, from surveys, outreach, and unsolicited emails, has been overwhelmingly positive, especially around usability and reading experience. We might adopt a frame…

I think that this comment is a great example of the total disconnect these conversations always have. On the one hand we have lots of people on here who are building full-featured web apps, not websites, on teams of 30+. These people look at frameworkless options and immediately have a dozen different questions about how your frameworkless design handles a dozen different features that their use case absolutely requi…

On the third hand, some people use React and some framework to write static web page...

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#169

Post by pests »

kdbuck wrote: post #57

Reminds me of this classic: http://vanilla-js.com/

Funny story, I have a comment chain here from a few years ago with someone who didn’t realize it wasn’t actually a framework. Total woosh. Lumped it in with the other frameworks and dismissed them all in the same sentence.

Re: Plain Vanilla Web

#170

Post by MrJohz »

spankalee wrote: post #141
skrebbel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't put those in templates though. It's a serious pain and completely unnecessary.

You absolutely can put properties in templates. Web component authors do this all the time. Here's a lit-html template that sets a property: html` `

That's not web components, though that's lit-html. That's an additional library you need to pull in to manage your web components. Which kind of ruins a lot of the stated benefits of web components. If I need a framework to write my web components, why not just pull in a different framework that skips the web component level completely and just outputs HTML/CSS directly? What is this intermediate step actually bringing me?
Post reply on HN