Live data from Hacker News

Htmx 4.0

four.htmx.org

31–40 of 208 posts

Re: Htmx 4.0

#31
> `hx-alpine-compat` - smooths over compatibility issues between htmx and Alpine.js

I looked into this when I tried HTMX 4 on a project earlier this year. I actually found that https://alpine-ajax.js.org/ was smaller than HTMX while providing all the features I needed. It is one of the sanctioned projects they link to so I felt good using it

Re: Htmx 4.0

#32
post #23

I've always been a fan and supporter of HTMX, but lately I've wondered how beneficial it is now that LLMs can generate JavaScript for us. HTMX was especially useful when I wrote JavaScript by hand because I appreciated its higher level of abstraction and simplicity. I also struggled to make it work with AlpineJS and eventually had to resort to plain JavaScript, which gave me finer control. Normally, switching to Java…

the browser is and always will be built for dealing with SSR HTML

IMO current browsers are more like an operating system designed for progressive loading of apps.

That doesn't mean do dumb / complicated / bloated stuff for no reason. If the best thing for your users is static html, use that.

Re: Htmx 4.0

#33
post #7

Congrats and thanks! htmx brings me joy. Pretty much every experiment I build now starts with Go, htmx, and SQLite to keep things simple and fast but still responsive. I put a few more thoughts about this here: https://housecat.com/blog/the-hugs-stack-hypermedia-unix-go-...

Agreed.

In fact, I find Django and Postgres to be the best solution for htmx but Go stack is probably almost as good in terms of developer velocity and obviously much faster. So I think that's a good solution.

You can really build powerful production apps with htmx, and what people underestimate is how good it is with AI assisted development (Claude understands it and does it well, and if any JS glue logic on a specific template is required, it's pretty well written and not a mess).

Re: Htmx 4.0

#34

I've always been a fan and supporter of HTMX, but lately I've wondered how beneficial it is now that LLMs can generate JavaScript for us. HTMX was especially useful when I wrote JavaScript by hand because I appreciated its higher level of abstraction and simplicity. I also struggled to make it work with AlpineJS and eventually had to resort to plain JavaScript, which gave me finer control. Normally, switching to Java…

I mean, htmx and JS glue logic is truly the differentiator now because LLM's do it so well. It's absolutely the way to go.

Re: Htmx 4.0

#35

I've always been a fan and supporter of HTMX, but lately I've wondered how beneficial it is now that LLMs can generate JavaScript for us. HTMX was especially useful when I wrote JavaScript by hand because I appreciated its higher level of abstraction and simplicity. I also struggled to make it work with AlpineJS and eventually had to resort to plain JavaScript, which gave me finer control. Normally, switching to Java…

It's hard to answer because I don't personally use HTMX as a way to avoid Javascript. HTMX is a Javascript library. And I don't know if I even find using HTMX easier/harder than writing JS, because they are fundamentally different approaches to building apps. It really just depends on what I'm trying to do.

One is a programming language used for writing client side code, and the other is a minimal library that makes server sent documents more ergonomic. Yes, it's a JS library with a few nice conveniences, but the main draw of HTMX encourages a completely different app architecture than what the average dev would arrive at with plain JS.

They're just two different things to me, and so it seems irrelevant if LLMs can help you write one faster. If you're only using HTMX to avoid JS, I don't see how LLMs discourage you from doing that. Wouldn't it be better to vibecode something you have an easier time reading than vibecode a language you don't even understand enough to use? What are you going to do if it blows up?

Re: Htmx 4.0

#36
I'm glad I'm not using this. It's the opposite of how I like to build web apps (which is either SSR with tiny bits of JS on top that I like to use Alpine.js for; or a JS-app that I like to use Elm for as life is too short runtime errors).

Nonetheless I hope all who do use Htmx, enjoy using it.

Re: Htmx 4.0

#37
post #7

Congrats and thanks! htmx brings me joy. Pretty much every experiment I build now starts with Go, htmx, and SQLite to keep things simple and fast but still responsive. I put a few more thoughts about this here: https://housecat.com/blog/the-hugs-stack-hypermedia-unix-go-...

I call it the GOSH stack (Go Sqlite Htmx) but HUGS is good too.

Re: Htmx 4.0

#38

Congratulations on the release! I have enjoyed working with htmx very much. I'm still skeptical of htmx being the foundation for a 100-year web service, but I think this is a really worthwhile goal. I'll add that aside from static HTML, I don't have a better option.

Thinking about how well your web architecture will hold up for 100 years (or even 10 years) is bikeshedding and a pointless exercise.

Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. If something is useful, it’s possible to fix the architecture later. The only counter-example I know of has been GitHub, which was built on RoR and so poorly planned that it’s still biting Microsoft on a regular basis.

Re: Htmx 4.0

#39
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the browser is and always will be built for dealing with SSR HTML

All apps I build are server-side rendered. I'm not sure how your comment changes the the question I'm asking.

apologies, i thought you were saying you were switching to SPAs because LLMs understand it better. I see some version of that comment nearly daily now. Carry on!

Re: Htmx 4.0

#40
post #29
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the browser is and always will be built for dealing with SSR HTML

Oof bold claim

how so? that's what they do - incomparably faster than dealing with JS
Post reply on HN