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

You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

pedroth.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#71

Post by magicalhippo »

wild_egg wrote: post #31
pedro_movai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author is referring to immediate mode because of UI=f(state)

I do understand that's what they have in mind. But that's not what immediate mode means. Function application is not the only criteria. We are talking about rendering into a browser by twiddling DOM APIs. That's definitely retained mode rendering and repeatedly claiming it's immediate mode doesn't make it true

If you compare the code using the presented framework to code using say immediate mode library like ImGui[1][2] for example, the presented framework does indeed seem to be exposing a retained mode API.

[1]: https://pthom.github.io/imgui_explorer/

[2]: https://github.com/ocornut/imgui

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#72

Post by jorisw »

holoduke wrote: post #59
donatj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree but also > what about X feature To which I argue unequivocally YAGNI 95% of apps people actually develop are really just CRUD and could easily get by without JavaScript on the front end at all. They certainly don't justify the layers of complicated state maintenance React and similar systems entail.

95% of the frontend apps can easily be made with AI. Doesn't matter in which framework.

Something being 'made with AI' in no way translates to the framework used becoming irrelevant.

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#73

Post by norman784 »

killerstorm wrote: post #48

Actually browsers already come with a minimal UI library. It's called HTML + CSS + JS. There's actually no need to make any wrappers - you describe what you want in HTML and make it look good with CSS. You only need to make UI using JS only for complex components. Case study: I tried porting an old strategy game from pygame to web using codex. Codex decided that it doesn't need any library and raw-dogged HTML. It was…

For me, what the browser needs it's a good DX to build components, I kind of like Svelte and Vue in that regard, where your CSS, HTML and JS lives all together.

Writing a CSS file with the time will start growing and at some point will be very hard to know what to keep and what to delete, I think this is the reason why tailwind became popular, because it keep only the used rules, now the downside is that now your html elements has ton of classes.

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#74

Post by pjmlp »

holoduke wrote: post #59
donatj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree but also > what about X feature To which I argue unequivocally YAGNI 95% of apps people actually develop are really just CRUD and could easily get by without JavaScript on the front end at all. They certainly don't justify the layers of complicated state maintenance React and similar systems entail.

95% of the frontend apps can easily be made with AI. Doesn't matter in which framework.

It matters when you use an headless CMS from the MACH architecture enterprise culture, and they only support a specific SDK, which is mostly Next.js/React.

- https://macharchitecture.com/

- https://www.sanity.io/studio (a possible example)

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#75

Post by soco »

afavour wrote: post #20

I think React is way overused but every time you see a blog post with "replace it with this pet mini project instead" I groan because you know the reaction is going to be "what about X feature", and of course the mini framework doesn't do it. I've found the perfect balance to be Astro with Preact. You will inevitably have some piece of functionality that's complex (say, a contact form) and you can lean into Preact fo…

Why should a contact form mean complex functionality? You can do it in plain HTML, even - is that complex already? Because validation? Like that (Google, it's you) address checking unable to place my house in the right village? Like phone number validation forcing you to add a 0 where no 0 is required to call me? And don't start me on streets and all that, or middle names, or dates or or or. Validations of form inputs are almost always a stupid yak shaving exercise, yet here we are.

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#76

Post by pjmlp »

killerstorm wrote: post #64
gorgoyel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is really folks trying to one-size-fits-all web projects. React basically exists to give a “good enough” GUI toolkit functionality in the browser. On the other hand, the web was built to publish content as in articles and information. Everything kind of sits somewhere on the continuum between static content and the interactive app experience. At the extreme it can be interactive “art” piece. It is importa…

I think main reason people choose React now is "nobody was fired for choosing React". (That used to be a saying about IBM as a vendor.) People can build their career around React. And it is better "job security" than pure HTML+JS: React apps need constant maintenance

Another reason are SaaS and iPaaS SDKs having it as favoured stack, which kind of builds on your assertion.

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#77

Post by sroerick »

inigyou wrote: post #18
pedro_movai wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the api is trying to simulate immediate mode using DOM

That's called an "abomination". The advantage of immediate mode is not storing a DOM. If you write immediate-mode code but it stores a DOM anyway then it's the worst of both worlds.

Isn't that literally React? I find it so immeasurably funny that in his effort to simplify code and invent immediate mode UI, Casey Muratori accidentally invented React

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#78

Post by sroerick »

wild_egg wrote: post #7

> immediate mode You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. React most definitely falls under what would be called a "retained mode" of some sort. And the UI library described here is also.

Isn't React specifically an attempt to build an immediate mode UI on top of the DOM?

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#79

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

afavour wrote: post #20

I think React is way overused but every time you see a blog post with "replace it with this pet mini project instead" I groan because you know the reaction is going to be "what about X feature", and of course the mini framework doesn't do it. I've found the perfect balance to be Astro with Preact. You will inevitably have some piece of functionality that's complex (say, a contact form) and you can lean into Preact fo…

> You will inevitably have some piece of functionality that's complex (say, a contact form)

And this is why it pays to just learn React. It's never been easier. A contact form is not that complex. React won. The LLM can author it pretty well at this point, probably better (and cheaper) than at least 50% of FE devs. Treating a "contact form" as a potential fork in the road in 2026 is just sad.

Re: You don't need React: creating a minimal UI library in Vanilla JavaScript

#80

Post by kccqzy »

afavour wrote: post #20

I think React is way overused but every time you see a blog post with "replace it with this pet mini project instead" I groan because you know the reaction is going to be "what about X feature", and of course the mini framework doesn't do it. I've found the perfect balance to be Astro with Preact. You will inevitably have some piece of functionality that's complex (say, a contact form) and you can lean into Preact fo…

Every time I see this kind of pet project I see whether they are addressing any actual issue of React or whether they don’t like React merely because it is popular. I especially look at whether they do state management or VDOM diffing differently from React. I find that if a project had done that, it is likely something the author was very proud of and was front-and-center. And there have been some interesting ideas in pet projects like using languages with macros so the build tool does part of the diffing. This one replaced VDOM with… nothing at all?
Post reply on HN