Re:T7.js: alternative to JSX that compiles template literals...
by chowes on Friday November 27, 2015 @04:20PM
(#10638888)
What's the advantage of this over using JSX? You can already go JSX->virtual-dom https://www.npmjs.com/package/virtual-dom-jsx, and the fact that it's "vanilla" JS doesn't mean much as it's ES6 which needs Babel.
Re:T7.js: alternative to JSX that compiles template literals...
by tobr on Friday November 27, 2015 @04:53PM
(#10639005)
One less dependency is always a good thing. The fact that template strings are part of the standard is a big advantage; any current or future tools that support ES6 will automatically support your templates as well.
Re:T7.js: alternative to JSX that compiles template literals...
by mikewhy on Friday November 27, 2015 @05:15PM
(#10639080)
> One less dependency is always a good thing
I think the parent's point is that to use template strings today one would have to use Babel, which already supports JSX. Thus the number of dependencies is the same in all scenarios: Babel + virtual-dom, or Babel + T7.
Re:T7.js: alternative to JSX that compiles template literals...
by kevrom on Friday November 27, 2015 @08:29PM
(#10639639)
That's not necessarily true with Babel 6. The new modular approach requires that you explicitly list which plugins you want Babel to use. So for JSX, you'd need to have `babel-plugin-syntax-jsx` as a dependency.
I think the parent's point is that to use template strings today one would have to use Babel, which already supports JSX. Thus the number of dependencies is the same in all scenarios: Babel + virtual-dom, or Babel + T7.