Great article but the resumable framework is called Qwik not Quik: https://qwik.builder.io/
The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#22Nice overview, especially for those of us working long term projects and locked into whatever framework the originals devs chose. I wish I had time to try all these things out, but it’s tough to keep up. Interesting that angular, and especially angular 2, only gets a passing mention.
Google itself has moved on from Angular. They invented Lit, the anti-framework, which has far less scaffolding and cruft and is based on browser standards.
Not sure I follow this? Lit seems to be hanging on by it's fingertips? It's official starter's dependencies is (was very recently)? painfully outdated. Angular continues to evolve with what seems to be many more people working on it and a budget.
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google itself has moved on from Angular. They invented Lit, the anti-framework, which has far less scaffolding and cruft and is based on browser standards.
Not sure I follow this? Lit seems to be hanging on by it's fingertips? It's official starter's dependencies is (was very recently)? painfully outdated. Angular continues to evolve with what seems to be many more people working on it and a budget.
What is left to do? It's syntactic sugar for browser standard stuff. It doesn't need to change, ever. That's an advantage.
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignorance is the norm until the information spread reaches critical mass. You could help spread ideas you consider worthwhile (presumably the ones you mention) by providing concrete links to the things you are talking about, especially information on how to properly take advantage of them. I've never heard of Lit and/or bare metal, and don't know where to begin. I also consider myself proficient in React and Angular.
Indeed. I wrote a whole series on it. I don't post this every time I comment, though. :-) https://link.medium.com/RpKPYCuwAtb
I skimmed this article and I’m confused and must not be understanding it.
It talks about bare metal vanilla components without any frameworks and such. This has my attention. But it ends with “here’s a library on top of web components called Lit!”
Are web components not good enough yet? Why do I need anything?
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#25The article doesn’t seem to give enough weight to GraphQL: it’s only mentioned in passing even though it solves the waterfall request problem mentioned much later in another context.
Hot take: a lot of usage of GraphQL is terrible and most apps don't need it. For example, I worked at a place where it was a requirement that everything runs through GraphQL. Sure, fine, except then you see that they were making tailor-made resolvers for particular use cases. You wouldn't see multiple different apps or sections of the app pulling from the same endpoint but with trimmed down queries. It was essentiall…
I agree, that is a problem: people forget the ”graph” in GraphQL. It’s too easy to just create new query resolver to resolve that one ticket instead of thinking how data relates to other data and how it could be resolved using that other data.
That is ultimately a people problem, however: why doesn’t it click that a ”resolver” is intended to ”resolve” other entities based on fields of the parent entity?
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I wrote a whole series on it. I don't post this every time I comment, though. :-) https://link.medium.com/RpKPYCuwAtb
I skimmed this article and I’m confused and must not be understanding it. It talks about bare metal vanilla components without any frameworks and such. This has my attention. But it ends with “here’s a library on top of web components called Lit!” Are web components not good enough yet? Why do I need anything?
It's not a library. No components ship with Lit. It's just syntactic sugar for stuff that's built into browsers now. That's the "bare metal" parts. You need to write your own components and make your own library for your company or project, although some big firms like IBM, Alaska Airlines, and MS have released the libraries they made with it.
This fact, that it's the "anti-framework" (ie: not a framework) is both its greatest advantage and its biggest source of confusion for new folks.
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#27Has anyone thought of creating an engine that creates web frameworks?
AI-generated JavaScript frameworks, here we go!
Re: The new wave of JavaScript web frameworks
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I skimmed this article and I’m confused and must not be understanding it. It talks about bare metal vanilla components without any frameworks and such. This has my attention. But it ends with “here’s a library on top of web components called Lit!” Are web components not good enough yet? Why do I need anything?
It's not a library. No components ship with Lit. It's just syntactic sugar for stuff that's built into browsers now. That's the "bare metal" parts. You need to write your own components and make your own library for your company or project, although some big firms like IBM, Alaska Airlines, and MS have released the libraries they made with it. This fact, that it's the "anti-framework" (ie: not a framework) is both it…
Interesting! Thanks for the clarification.