DEV Community

Discussion on: Components are Pure Overhead

Collapse
 
dannyengelman profile image
Danny Engelman • Edited

Great article, I share most part of your tech vision, but with a different point-of-view.

Traditional Frameworks (and Svelte) are only "Components" for the Programmer.

To the User the end result "Product" is one big monolith.

From 1994 onward, I saw the Web grow big because Users could easily copy "code" from other websites.
WWW wasn't the only technology back then.
But it was the only technology where entry-level was low.

And we can't but agree "Web Development" has turned into something for-rocket-scientists-only

Using Frameworks (and Svelte) is like buying a IKEA Billy bookcase glued together, never to be taken apart again. Unlike early Web days, it is impossible to learn how to build/copy/enhance/extend your (own) bookcase.

That is not how Tim Berners-Lee envisioned the Hyper-Web!


Web Components technology is not about technology.

Web Components are about modularizing the whole stack.

Functionaly like how we use CDNs and Libraries.
(Alas, Lea rightly complained; there is no technology yet to rate & share good Web Components)

Web Components bring the Web back to its roots.

Web Components are Web Components are Web Components:

Web Components Technology

  • Can the implementaion be made better?
    Sure, Apple, Google, Mozilla and Microsoft are activly working together

  • Will the implementation be made better?
    Yes, bright minds like Rich Harris inspire others

  • And don't forget, CPUs still get faster every year.
    "Performance" is becoming a non-argument fast

PS. Most currect Web Component developers are developing monoliths.

Collapse
 
peerreynders profile image
peerreynders • Edited

And don't forget, CPUs still get faster every year.
"Performance" is becoming a non-argument fast

Largely repeating my earlier comment:

So even if there are faster CPUs every year, trends are conspiring so that a web application will more frequently encounter devices with lower single thread performance - which is a problem as most third-party browser technologies are still single threaded (Why can't we just make everything multithreaded?; meanwhile the browser itself is moving many non-JS tasks off-the-main-thread). At this point in the game being able to do everything on the main thread simplifies your application development, while leveraging web workers introduces you to an entirely new set of trade-offs. So getting the most work out of the main thread is still very much an issue.

Also I really wanted to like Web Components.

Having been introduced back in 2011 they seem to be a product of that time where most innovations were entirely client focused (i.e. CSR). By the time they became viable, CSR frameworks were already scrambling to retroactively bolt on SSR, while Web Components seemed to lack a server-side/hydration story. Being able to split server and client-side aspects of a component or being able to share the markup template(s) in an implementation agnostic manner would seem like a good idea.

Collapse
 
dannyengelman profile image
Danny Engelman • Edited

The most important aspect all these discussions forget is:

It has NOTHING to do with technology

In august 2019 the W3C and WHATWG agreed the WHATWG would be in the lead on Web development.
The W3C will only give the final "its a standard" approval.

The WHATWG is By-inivitation-only
And to date, Apple, Google, Mozilla and Microsoft haven't invited Facebook yet.

and it is ALL about technology

This means no single company can get away with single-company dominanting technologies

If you follow the threads, you see 4 companies more and more working better together,
something I have never seen in my 31 active Internet years.
And ofcourse they are slow... they all have to agree. I can't even agree with my wife on everything.

So/but the "V1 Web Components" standard (V0 was a Google party, not a standard) will only get better

And yes, Facebook "owns" 60-70% of the Front-End market, and doesn't even mention Web Component technology in the last React release.

  • Once AltaVista owned the search market

  • Once IE had 90% of the Browser market

  • Once Flash was installed on every device

React is the new Cobol

Thread Thread
 
peerreynders profile image
peerreynders

The WHATWG is By-invitation-only
And to date, Apple, Google, Mozilla and Microsoft haven't invited Facebook yet.

Apple (WebKit), Google (Blink), Mozilla (Gecko), Microsoft (Trident/EdgeHTML), Facebook (?).

  • Given this situation what does Facebook have to contribute?
  • Facebook has no interest in browser-engines. As far as they're concerned the Web could burn down tomorrow and they would happily continue making native clients for every platform under the sun.

So/but the "V1 Web Components" standard ... will only get better.

I think the point you are trying to make is that Web Components are a standard while React is not.

However not all standards are adopted by the industry as a whole.

Example:

Do not use this application cache feature! It is in the process of being removed from the Web platform - Using the application cache

AppCache: Douchebag

Also from the article's author: Maybe Web Components are not the Future?

React merely has a visible, vocal support base - which makes its component model seem popular.

And yes, Facebook "owns" 60-70% of the Front-End market.

With reference to what 100%?

React is used by 2.5% of all the websites whose JavaScript library we know. This is 2.0% of all websites.

Usage statistics and market share of React for websites

Top 1m 10.26%
Top 100k 22.42%
Top 10k 39.25%

React Usage Statistics

Top 1m 75.42%
Top 100k 80.9%
Top 10k 79.62%

jQuery Usage Statistics

Top 1m 44.06%
Top 100k 49.22%
Top 10k 52.91%

PHP Usage Statistics

React is the new Cobol