Re:Web Components Eliminate JavaScript Framework Lock-In
by gitaarik on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @03:48PM
(#38465096)
That is a slight layer upon simple JavaScript string templates, nothing compared to JSX I would say
Edit: hint: that is why Lit's library is also much smaller
Re:Web Components Eliminate JavaScript Framework Lock-In
by troupo on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @04:23PM
(#38465516)
I: list all the custom things that lit has
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.
Re:Web Components Eliminate JavaScript Framework Lock-In
by gitaarik on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @04:45PM
(#38465754)
From all our arguments I think it's obvious that Lit has less lock-in than any other framework we discussed. If you find it so important to prove your point, why don't you make an exstensive comparison of all the discussed frameworks?
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:
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.