Glossing over is fine, and abstractions will always put an extra learning layer and require the dev to know his fundamentals.
Agreed. But inventing new ways to do the same stuff with the same ugliness rating of the underlying tech, that's what I dislike... And that's what JSX has - unnecessary deviations from standards. You can't call className an abstraction... It doesn't abstract anything, It's just a simple patch for a design flaw.
If my tool becomes popular maybe people will complain about it, but it won't be for creating unnecessary deviations from standard html. (Really, check it out, it's pure html plus expressions for reactive values...).
It is hugely different from JSX - it doesn't require a compilations step, it's just legit JS code. There's no new html-like syntax to learn. The actual rerender mechanism is embedded into the template unlike react (it's a render - once template). No VDOM. The diff is huge, really :)
By the way, what did you mean by "control flow decisions which don't resemble HTML"? Html doesn't have control flow decisions. Did you compare the {condition && someConditionalContent} syntax that Yoffee and react use with Vue's v-if tags?
Yea, I'm saying if it aint exactly HTML then I guess we can say it deviates from the "standard" if that's the strict set of rules we're upholding things to. I'm not the one saying that but the JSX hater crowd seems uphold this for JSX and conveniently ignore that they (angular, vue, yours probably) do control flow in various ways that also isn't exactly HTML so to me that's splitting hairs (bike-shedding) over syntax which really doesn't matter
Like, one of the main points that other article made was something to the effect of: "I can't copy JSX into another project as HTML and that rubs me the wrong way...", what, like you can with any of these template lang DLS syntax? The JSX hater crowd is one of the more ridiculous that Ive seen with their arguments and I've been doing this shit for 22 years
Well, the author should have specified that he needs to do much more work copying JSX to another framework than copying code of libraries that use tagged template literals. The author may have accidentally implied that it's actually possible to copy from framework to framework, but to me it didn't seem so and his point was fairly clear.
The hater crowd, me included, sees that some things should be much easier than they are, even if the popular way is not so terrible.
Glossing over is fine, and abstractions will always put an extra learning layer and require the dev to know his fundamentals.
Agreed. But inventing new ways to do the same stuff with the same ugliness rating of the underlying tech, that's what I dislike... And that's what JSX has - unnecessary deviations from standards. You can't call
classNamean abstraction... It doesn't abstract anything, It's just a simple patch for a design flaw.If my tool becomes popular maybe people will complain about it, but it won't be for creating unnecessary deviations from standard html. (Really, check it out, it's pure html plus expressions for reactive values...).
It is hugely different from JSX - it doesn't require a compilations step, it's just legit JS code. There's no new html-like syntax to learn. The actual rerender mechanism is embedded into the template unlike react (it's a render - once template). No VDOM. The diff is huge, really :)
By the way, what did you mean by "control flow decisions which don't resemble HTML"? Html doesn't have control flow decisions. Did you compare the
{condition && someConditionalContent}syntax that Yoffee and react use with Vue'sv-iftags?Yea, I'm saying if it aint exactly HTML then I guess we can say it deviates from the "standard" if that's the strict set of rules we're upholding things to. I'm not the one saying that but the JSX hater crowd seems uphold this for JSX and conveniently ignore that they (angular, vue, yours probably) do control flow in various ways that also isn't exactly HTML so to me that's splitting hairs (bike-shedding) over syntax which really doesn't matter
Like, one of the main points that other article made was something to the effect of: "I can't copy JSX into another project as HTML and that rubs me the wrong way...", what, like you can with any of these template lang DLS syntax? The JSX hater crowd is one of the more ridiculous that Ive seen with their arguments and I've been doing this shit for 22 years
Well, the author should have specified that he needs to do much more work copying JSX to another framework than copying code of libraries that use tagged template literals. The author may have accidentally implied that it's actually possible to copy from framework to framework, but to me it didn't seem so and his point was fairly clear.
The hater crowd, me included, sees that some things should be much easier than they are, even if the popular way is not so terrible.
No worries. I'm sure we each have better things to do today, we can agree to disagree on JSX 😊