But lit needs lit's custom DSL, lit's custom reactive components, custom everything.
Even in their most trivial example literally everything is custom, and specific to lit:
import {LitElement, css, html} from 'lit';
import {customElement, property} from 'lit/decorators.js';
// custom lit-specific decorator
@customElement('simple-greeting')
export class SimpleGreeting extends LitElement {
// custom lit-specific css function
static styles = css`
:host {
color: blue;
}
`;
// Custom, lit-specific reactive properties
@property()
name?: string = 'World';
// custom lit-specific render function
render() {
// custom lit-specific DSL
return html`<p>Hello, ${this.name}!</p>`;
}
}
So. So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I eagerly await a description, with examples, of how much work there is to convert a non-trivial lit component to Stencil.BTW. Claiming that Virtual DOM is somehow a react-specific technology (and that somehow apparently affects conversion from React to something else) really shows how much you understand about the topic at hand.
Edit: hint: that is why Lit's library is also much smaller
I: ask to show me how converting from lit to something else is easier as you claim
You: ignore everything completely and answer a question literally no on asked, and pretend that the only custom thing is the DSL.
Yup. My choice to completely ignore you in a sibling discussion was correct.
On the other hand, after a few years of engaging with web component defenders, propoenents and propagandists I'm not surprised in the least. This behaviour is on par with the rest of them.
Lit doesn't need JSX and a virtual DOM, which are React specific technologies. You have to design your React components with these technologies in mind. With Lit there are much less dependencies like that, so your code will be less designed for a specific framework, making it easier to move to another framework that doesn't impose a specific workflow.