> All 3 require some form of JavaScript library coupled with markup to build interfaces.
With HTMX you're typically including one static javascript file that you just download, you're not using any kind of javascript build system at all. Where it has very limited scope it's possible to imagine a browser that doesn't have javascript but that has HTMX built in.
Calling it a javascript library might be a bit much, I mean you're not typically installing this with node/npm, or minifying it, or importing it. You're just including it in a script tag at the bottom of your site. While they both do technically run on javascript I think they have more differences than things they have in common, and saying "Well they're both just javascript libraries" is a very sophomoric take. I mean you might as well just say that all javascript libraries are the same, and it doesn't matter what you use. So why choose react/vue over jquery?
> inefficiencies seen with React/Vue are largely an artifact of bad code/practices, not the libraries themselves.
Ehh, I'm sure you can make a fast bug-free website in server-side assembly if you're so inclined but it's probably not the right tool for the job. The question is what kind of design patterns do the libraries/tools encourage, not "can I do X with Y".
- [1] https://vuejs.org/guide/quick-start.html#without-build-tools
- [2] https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2020/react-without-build-tools/
Instead of api models and client models, you just have models.
Instead of api routes and client routes, you just have routes.
Instead of unit testing api and client, you test one project.
Instead of having the client making N requests to load all the data it needs from the server (and being careful not to return more data than you need for performance reasons), you return an html with all the data it needs in a single request, and nothing more.
In the case of client stacks using SSR (like Next/Nuxt):
Instead of running the SPA on the server so the server returns the html rendered, you just make the server return the html rendered.
The benefit to the developer is higher productivity. The benefit to the end user should follow from that.
Even if you really needed it to be an API, you can always make the server side return either html or json depending on some request header. There's also a chance that the mobile version will be different enough from the desktop that it warrants new, custom built endpoints anyway.
However, 99% of javascript blobs of hatred end up slower than downloading the pre-rendered content.
Edit: wording
Also, by eliminating application javascript, it allows you to spend more time in your preferred language on the back end.
The downside is the same as regular HTML, although less pronounced: since you are driving application state through hypermedia (HATEOAS), the less coarse-grained your state or UI gets the more annoying things are going to be. There are some patterns that help but eventually, if you want to update 12 different places in your UI at once on every keystroke, the hypermedia approach just isn't going to cut it.
But these days (using transpilers and/or WebAssembly) you can choose just about any language on the front-end ...
On the other hand, the simplicity of the hypermedia approach, and the flexibility of ReST are still there.
We'll see.
Imagine not having html at all. You'd have to create pages from scratch imperatively by doing things like let element = createElement("p"); element.setContent("my paragraph"); parent.addChild(element); It'd be really ugly, a PITA to change stuff and error-prone. htmx is the opposite of that. It tries to make web development declarative again, among other things.
It kind of returns to the original intention of the web.
(And don't start with "it's faster/more efficient", that comparison isn't terribly valid because the inefficiencies seen with React/Vue are largely an artifact of bad code/practices, not the libraries themselves.)