that sounds like a massively satisfying project to be involved with!
The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
151–160 of 260 posts
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
lit-html is no more of a standard than JSX. In fact JSX is better because tools like VSCode is able to validate both HTML and embedded JavaScript.
Huh? lit-html uses standard JavaScript. That's it. JSX is a non-standard extension. So yes it is more standard than a non-standard, and lit-html runs directly in browsers without any transpilation while JSX very much doesn't. VS Code is as able to analyze lit-html templates as well as JSX via the lit-plugin extensions. It gives you type-checking, code completion, hover-over docs, and linting.
lit-html needs a 1600 line library where as UIBuilder is a 200-line library:
https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder/blob/master/UIBuilde...
Yes, JSX needs transpilation but that happens at compile-time. Which is better, pre-processing at compile-time, or "transpilation" (i.e., string processing) at run-time?
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
>why Toyota Corollas and Ford F-150's don't use the same engine Yeah, they're now a weaker (browser) engine bolted on with adapters to the gui engine. Everyone gets to go through the js bottleneck.
To continue the metaphor, it's like every car has the same crappy transmission.
More like Electron adds its own crappy transmission to whatever you had already
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#154XUL was ahead of its time when it was introduced by Netscape/Mozilla many years ago. It was a capable XML based language used to describe rich graphical user interfaces. Together with XULRunner this was supposed to be a generic framework for creating graphical applications. This was long before HTML became what it is today. Back then people still thought Java would take off on the desktop. I believe that most Mozilla…
So is Thunderbird still using XUL or not?
Likely only because it doesn't see enough attention to be migrated.
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
lit-html is no more of a standard than JSX. In fact JSX is better because tools like VSCode is able to validate both HTML and embedded JavaScript.
Huh? lit-html uses standard JavaScript. That's it. JSX is a non-standard extension. So yes it is more standard than a non-standard, and lit-html runs directly in browsers without any transpilation while JSX very much doesn't. VS Code is as able to analyze lit-html templates as well as JSX via the lit-plugin extensions. It gives you type-checking, code completion, hover-over docs, and linting.
OK, so plugins can enhance code editing. But what about compile-time checks? With TSX, if you have a mis-matched tag the TypeScript compiler will give you an error.
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#156I'm waiting for Firefox to start using a native context menu on macOS instead of the garbage that they are now using and which doesn't behave anything like any other context menu on macOS. It's luckily on Bugzilla, so I can keep monitoring progress daily. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
There are a couple of other non-native things Firefox does that annoy me.
1. It has its own certificate system. That would be fine if it used that in addition to using the MacOS built in system, but it seems to use it exclusively.
2. It has its own spell checker, which is orders of magnitude worse than the one provided by the native MacOS spell check API. I can't think of any program I've used in the last few years on Mac or Windows that had a worse spell checker.
LibreOffice is open source and its spell checker is fine as far as I've seen--definitely way better than the one in Firefox--so that if Mozilla for some reason needs to have the same spell check on each OS and so can't use the native MacOS one, they could still bring it up to par by copying from LibreOffice.
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? lit-html uses standard JavaScript. That's it. JSX is a non-standard extension. So yes it is more standard than a non-standard, and lit-html runs directly in browsers without any transpilation while JSX very much doesn't. VS Code is as able to analyze lit-html templates as well as JSX via the lit-plugin extensions. It gives you type-checking, code completion, hover-over docs, and linting.
OK, so plugins can enhance code editing. But what about compile-time checks? With TSX, if you have a mis-matched tag the TypeScript compiler will give you an error.
Same with lit-html and the TypeScript compiler plugin.
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? lit-html uses standard JavaScript. That's it. JSX is a non-standard extension. So yes it is more standard than a non-standard, and lit-html runs directly in browsers without any transpilation while JSX very much doesn't. VS Code is as able to analyze lit-html templates as well as JSX via the lit-plugin extensions. It gives you type-checking, code completion, hover-over docs, and linting.
lit-html needs a 1600 line library where as UIBuilder is a 200-line library: https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder/blob/master/UIBuilde... Yes, JSX needs transpilation but that happens at compile-time. Which is better, pre-processing at compile-time, or "transpilation" (i.e., string processing) at run-time?
UIBuilder doesn't do incremental updates at all. You might as well use innerHTML and template literals. That's a 0-line library :)
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean that it is OK to have messy code as long as your competitors do too or do you mean that since chrome is doing it, it can't result in messy code?
I see no connection between WC's and messy code. Can bo good, can be bad.
Just saying -- transitioning a large project from one component system to another -- while also developing/evolving the new component system ...
I can just imagine it would be easy to build up a very large mess ...
Re: The Firefox UI Is Now Built with Web Components
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Electron is popular because you can hire web devs to make a desktop product. With JS you can write code that runs on your server (NodeJS) desktop (Electron), browser and mobile app (Cordova). It's not a great experience but it is good for rapid development, easier hiring of skills (just need some web devs!) and the code reuse might be helpful for bug reduction.
Its also slow and bloated. You get what you pay for
Bloated, yes. Slow, no. You start at a not so low binary size and memory footprint, but that's it. VS Code is an awesome IDE built on electron and it's really snappy.