I'm downvoting this because this is a knockout argument: People use this comic way too often to shush those of us who want to have a debate about whether a standard would be useful in a particular situation. I don't think this was Randall's intention when he did this comic.

>People use this comic way too often to shush those of us who want to have a debate about whether a standard would be useful in a particular situation

And more often than not, they are right.

In this particular case Web Components only solves part of what frameworks do, and solves it badly. As badly as CSS solved the layout problem the last 2 decades.

I wouldn't mind a nice Web Components solution, but the current design reminds me of the over-engineering of things like Swing and JSF.

Actually I rather pick a Swing or JSF project over any modern HTML 5 one, if given the option.

Now the latest Web framework trend is to do start headless browsers to do server side rendering.

> And more often than not, they are right.

And yet, every time that the number of standards is reduced, it is by this same process.

So, yes, it is the one way to do it. And yes, more often than more, it fails completely. So, let me ask you, what is the point of complaining that somebody is going through that?

>And yet, every time that the number of standards is reduced, it is by this same process

Is it? I'd say it's usually rather because:

(a) Some of the competing standards wither and we get rid of them.

(b) Some standard emerges as the winning one and is adopted by everybody.

But very rarely by the addition of a new standard.

So, some standard emerging does not require creating standards?

And for competing standards to wither, there somebody must have created the other standards too.

>So, some standard emerging does not require creating standards?

I wrote "emerges as winner". Not "emerges period".

Which does not require creating a NEW standard on top of existing ones (N+1), since an already existing standard (of N) can emerge as the winner.

fair enough; thanks for explaining your decision, too.

I think it's a potent danger to be aware of, but I agree that I don't think it's a binding prophecy that somehow must happen.

I'm upvoting this, primarily because it accurately reflects what usually happens when a new standard is proposed. Apparently the rest of the HN community is either unaware of this, or dislike being reminded of it.