No-build, no-NPM, SSR-first JavaScript framework if you hate React, love HTML
26 points by usrbinenv 5 days ago | 14 comments
  • bartwaardenburg an hour ago |
    The fields/flags state model is a nice idea, having structured values separate from boolean state is something I haven't seen in other frameworks. How does this compare to Alpine.js or htmx in practice? They're in a similar space (no build, SSR-first) but I'm curious what made you go with a new framework rather than building on top of those?
    • aledevv an hour ago |
      I agree, I hate unnecessary hypercomplexity.

      Most of the time, it's enough to build in a simple, clean, and lightweight way. Just like in the old days. Your server's resources will also thank you. Furthermore, the simplicity of web pages is also rewarded by search engines.

      If it were up to me, I'd build sites exclusively in .md format :)

    • dleeftink an hour ago |
      Think Xstate[0] machines are a little more intuitive than the conditional value structuring displayed here in the example, but it is an interesting idea indeed.

      [0]: https://github.com/statelyai/xstate?tab=readme-ov-file#super...

  • rounce an hour ago |
    Why have `<div data-part="form">` instead of using a `<form>` element?
  • febusravenga an hour ago |
    "If you hate react" feels like very bad argument in engineering.

    Anyway, interesting approach for up to medium pages (not apps!). Totally not replacement for react.

    • anematode an hour ago |
      Perhaps a bad argument, but for some people a very compelling one...
    • austin-cheney 36 minutes ago |
      Why is that a bad argument? The author strongly dislikes React and so wrote an alternative that is radically more simple, which sounds like a perfectly sane argument.
      • bestest 33 minutes ago |
        Does the author dislike react? How about preact? Or maybe simply jsx? Or nextjs?

        There's nothing wrong with either of these if used correctly. Thus "hate" is a rather shallow argument.

        • tobr 15 minutes ago |
          Your argument that it’s a shallow argument is itself a shallow argument. ”I hate x” is not a technical argument anyway, it’s an emotional assessment.
  • egeozcan an hour ago |
    IMHO, you shouldn't make "hate" part of your tagline.

    Maybe focus on a use-case? Something like, "No-build, no-NPM, SSR-first JavaScript framework specializing in Time-to-interactive" - maybe?

  • ale 33 minutes ago |
    Build steps are realistically speaking inevitable because of minification, tree-shaking, etc. which is not even a big deal these days with tools like esbuild. For a "true" DOM-first component reactive system just use Web Components and any Signals library out there and you're good.
  • hliyan 19 minutes ago |
    I'm starting to wonder whether reactivity (not React specifically) was the originally sin that led to modern UI complexity. UI elements automatically reacting to data changes (as oppposed to components updating themselves by listening to events) was supposed to make things easier. But in reality, it introduced state as something distinct from both the UI and the data source (usually an API or a local cache). That introduced state management. It was all downhill from there (starting with two way data binding, Flux architecture, Redux, state vs. props, sagas, prop drilling, hooks, context API, stateful components vs. stateless components, immutability, shallow copy vs. deep copy, so on and so forth).
    • ivanjermakov 3 minutes ago |
      I still believe immediate rendering is the only way for easy-to-reason-about UI building. And I believe this is why early React took off - a set of simple functions that take state and output page layout. Too bad DOM architecture is not compatible with direct immediate rendering. Shadow DOM or tree diffing shenanigans under the hood are needed.