1. 30

  2. 13

    That’s a fairly complete overview, and kudos to the author for taking the time to lay out the historical background. I find that too often in tech we don’t take the time to put things in perspective, and take stock of where we’re coming from.

    1. 6

      It’s an admittedly truncated history, but not talking about the initial failure of web components cuts out a big swath of what happened. Pre-React, there was a push from Google to bring this stuff into the browser, but there was no cow path to pave, so it ended up being a very bad API, which, god bless ‘em, people are somehow trying to force into working even now. A lot of the design of things only makes sense with that context.

      More recently, there are the attempts to get out of the JS wars with Phoenix, Stimulus, and Alpine that are worth mentioning.

      1. 3

        Great article. Interesting that it doesn’t even mention Web Components (lit / Polymer, Stencil, etc).

        1. 5

          I was also hoping to see a mention of the live app paradigm with frameworks like Phoenix LIveView or Rails Hotwire. Overall a fairly thorough article, though.

          1. 1

            Good idea to have mentioned them, also noticed they’re weren’t mentioned.

          2. 2

            I thought the mentions of the word “components” referred to Web Components? Or is that some other meaning of the word?

            1. 3

              “Components” typically refers to things like React, Angular, Vue, etc. but “web components” refers to using the customElement and Shadow DOM APIs. Those APIs are crap though, so the main reason to use them is ideologically: if you use them, you can claim to be more standards compliant for some reason.