A few of those reasons are a bit far-fetched though. Like complaining that web components will have to define countless getters for HTML attributes; you can easily just fix that with a bit of meta-programming.
Some things mentioned in that post might haven't aged well, but the thing is that the author of Svelte is not "pro Web Components". Still if you use the API that comes with the browser, you need to use that awkward attributeChangedCallback method, and if we use an util on top of that or we just don't use it and create a custom approach, then we end up just saying that he's right and using libraries or frameworks is better than using the platform directly X_X .... I just wish at some point we get Web Components 2.0 and the API is better than the one we got for 1.0 😅
I kind of disagree though. Using a small abstraction layer to make custom elements more comfortable is still vastly different from using a complete framework that doesn't even use custom elements at all.
What's more, this often isn't even necessary for very simple components: the low-level APIs are often more than enough for those. And as they get more complex, you can first start using meta-programming directly inside the code of your component before moving to a microframework once even that becomes hard to handle, at which point you're probably already building a considerably big component.
As for web components 2.0, I think that's exactly where frameworks should come in. Whether you prefer a huge framework with thousands of lines of code or a small micro-framework like what I use, it's easy to make the current APIs much nicer to use at some performance cost by generating getters/setters or by looking up functions at runtime. The point is that the API leaves the decision to you whether you want to make those trade-offs.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
A few of those reasons are a bit far-fetched though. Like complaining that web components will have to define countless getters for HTML attributes; you can easily just fix that with a bit of meta-programming.
Some things mentioned in that post might haven't aged well, but the thing is that the author of Svelte is not "pro Web Components". Still if you use the API that comes with the browser, you need to use that awkward
attributeChangedCallbackmethod, and if we use an util on top of that or we just don't use it and create a custom approach, then we end up just saying that he's right and using libraries or frameworks is better than using the platform directly X_X .... I just wish at some point we get Web Components 2.0 and the API is better than the one we got for 1.0 😅I kind of disagree though. Using a small abstraction layer to make custom elements more comfortable is still vastly different from using a complete framework that doesn't even use custom elements at all.
What's more, this often isn't even necessary for very simple components: the low-level APIs are often more than enough for those. And as they get more complex, you can first start using meta-programming directly inside the code of your component before moving to a microframework once even that becomes hard to handle, at which point you're probably already building a considerably big component.
As for web components 2.0, I think that's exactly where frameworks should come in. Whether you prefer a huge framework with thousands of lines of code or a small micro-framework like what I use, it's easy to make the current APIs much nicer to use at some performance cost by generating getters/setters or by looking up functions at runtime. The point is that the API leaves the decision to you whether you want to make those trade-offs.