"The reality is, if you add a tool or library on top of Web Components, like Stencil, suddenly almost all of those issues go away and the power of Web Components really shine through."
And there you go. If you have to have a framework to solve the problem, then you haven't really solved the problem. WebComponents do solve a problem, a problem nearly no team has. They are okay for low-level parts, but the API is clunky and dated. The web developer community has moved on from when the WebComponents spec was created, but the spec spent years in "development hell" waiting for all the browsers to implement it (and still some areas are not covered) and the polyfills required crippled some browsers. At this stage, the browser vendors should be shipping web components to spec out newer ideas. Not expect the dev community to take a step backward or embrace frameworks that have only a fraction of mindshare as the other web frameworks.
Hey Kevin, I already addressed several of your points in the post.
And no, it’s not the same as a framework because the output is portable, and that’s a huge difference. Whether you use Stencil or something else the components can work together without you having to use that framework, which is a huge difference.
As noted in the post if you’re not satisfied with tooling then you won’t be satisfied with my argument and that’s okay.
I recently gave a talk on web components, and I have wanted to like them for years. But the compromises they had to come to (like only supporting the class syntax) have hurt more than helped.
WebComponents have a place, and your case is a prime of example of that. But I would hate to tell someone just learning web development to learn and build something with them. Or that they would have to use another framework that pushes them even farther from javascript/html/css.
As primitives, yeah maybe. For application dev? I'd have to take a hard pass.
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.
"The reality is, if you add a tool or library on top of Web Components, like Stencil, suddenly almost all of those issues go away and the power of Web Components really shine through."
And there you go. If you have to have a framework to solve the problem, then you haven't really solved the problem. WebComponents do solve a problem, a problem nearly no team has. They are okay for low-level parts, but the API is clunky and dated. The web developer community has moved on from when the WebComponents spec was created, but the spec spent years in "development hell" waiting for all the browsers to implement it (and still some areas are not covered) and the polyfills required crippled some browsers. At this stage, the browser vendors should be shipping web components to spec out newer ideas. Not expect the dev community to take a step backward or embrace frameworks that have only a fraction of mindshare as the other web frameworks.
Hey Kevin, I already addressed several of your points in the post.
And no, it’s not the same as a framework because the output is portable, and that’s a huge difference. Whether you use Stencil or something else the components can work together without you having to use that framework, which is a huge difference.
As noted in the post if you’re not satisfied with tooling then you won’t be satisfied with my argument and that’s okay.
I recently gave a talk on web components, and I have wanted to like them for years. But the compromises they had to come to (like only supporting the class syntax) have hurt more than helped.
WebComponents have a place, and your case is a prime of example of that. But I would hate to tell someone just learning web development to learn and build something with them. Or that they would have to use another framework that pushes them even farther from javascript/html/css.
As primitives, yeah maybe. For application dev? I'd have to take a hard pass.