this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37742 readers
64 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, and that's what is shown in this article.
htmx is not meant to do anything fancy that you can’t do with Ember/Angular/React/Vue/etc.
htmx is simpler though and has a few benefits as I see it, compared to those frameworks:
No duplication of data models and routing, and all business logic stays on the server-side where it belongs.
No build step, no dependency hell, and no outrageous churn; just include one JS file that browsers should be able to run indefinitely.
I feel like most of the things such as dependency hell and at least some amount of data models and routing can be resolved by using custom elements tho. I can agree to a certain point that HTMX could lead to a simple markup based approach, but it's still a matter of learning another library and all that junk. In a perfect world I feel like there should just be an equivalent to maybe the `` element that could on becoming visible makes an Http call to lazy load and plop in some inner HTML. I guess you'd still be missing the whole events driven by attributes part tho.
I don't know if I think this whole HTMX stuff is silly cause I'm jaded, or don't see a use case for it personally. So take my comment with a huge grain of salt.