JSX: yesTypeScript: sureCommonJS & ESM: no problemDecorators: yeehawWeb Components: how dare you, this is too much complexity
-
@rawrmonstar I think I see what you’re saying. Fwiw, WebC components aren’t required to be Web Components—they can generate HTML without custom elements too. Moreso, WebC can generate a standalone custom element with 0 library JavaScript overhead.
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Curioso 🍉 🇺🇦 (jgg) last edited by
@jgg I dunno if I’d say CommonJS is obsolete quiet yet—definitely still has a place in Node.js land (at least until CJS/ESM compat ships)
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Naiyer last edited by
@naiyer whew, I’ve definitely felt that Vue 2/3 pain
-
@naiyer what about Web Components v0 -> v1? But yeah Web Components are stable now so that's good!
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Tegan last edited by
@rawrmonstar @naiyer v0 was Chrome-only. We can have a conversation about overly aggressive single vendor web features but this isn’t one of those
-
Teganreplied to Zach Leatherman :11ty: last edited by
-
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Tegan last edited by
@rawrmonstar @naiyer for sure—I don’t think the v0 thing was good either. But folks blaze past the two+ impls best practice all the time (which is risky!). e.g. Astro shipped View Transitions stuff when it was Chrome-only and no one batted an eye (well… I did, but ️)
-
Teganreplied to Zach Leatherman :11ty: last edited by
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Tegan last edited by
@rawrmonstar @naiyer you get what I mean though—multiple impls is an important milestone
-
Mike Aparicioreplied to Zach Leatherman :11ty: last edited by
@zachleat CSS: what do I look like a fucking rocket scientist? WTF even is this shit?
-
Zach Leatherman :11ty:replied to Mike Aparicio last edited by
@peruvianidol 🫣🫣🫣 I still have trouble wrapping my head around a preference for HTML over CSS, it just doesn’t fit the stereotype