9 comments

  • hliyan 47 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).
    • tobyhinloopen 6 minutes ago
      I use Preact without reactivity. That way we can have familiar components that look like React (including strong typing, Typescript / TSX), server-side rendering and still have explicit render calls using an MVC pattern.
    • applfanboysbgon 29 minutes ago
      I genuinely don't understand why this model is the norm. As a game developer working in my own engine, UI is unbelievably straight-forward: the game has state. The master Render() function draws all of the graphics according to the current state, called at framerate times per second. Nothing in Render() can change the state of the program. The program can be run headlessly with Render() pre-processed out completely. The mental model is so easy to work with. There is a sleep-management routine to save on CPU usage when idle, and dirty logic to avoid re-drawing static content constantly. I feel like the world would save 90% of its GUI development time if it didn't do whatever the fuck reactive UIs are doing.
      • croes 7 minutes ago
        UI is mostly static. Rendering everything at framerate per second is a huge waste of time and energy.
      • mpalmer 5 minutes ago
        You genuinely don't understand why a web developer would never want to build immediate-mode UIs?

        At the very least, I understand why your techniques help you...

      • hliyan 25 minutes ago
        That reminded me of another complexity: virtual DOM diff.
    • ivanjermakov 30 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.
    • mpalmer 14 minutes ago
      Why do you list all of these design patterns as though you have to hold them all in your head at the same time? As though each one made the ecosystem successively worse?

          UI elements automatically reacting to data changes (as oppposed to components updating themselves by listening to events)
      
      That's not so much a lack of statefulness as it is making zero effort to lift your application's data model out of platform-specific UI concerns.
  • ale 1 hour 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.
  • rounce 1 hour ago
    Why have `<div data-part="form">` instead of using a `<form>` element?
  • 1GZ0 17 minutes ago
    Yeah, no thanks..

    I'll just stick with a $5 vps with lamp and jjquery

  • egeozcan 1 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?

  • febusravenga 1 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.

    • austin-cheney 1 hour 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 1 hour 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 43 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.
      • corstian 0 minutes ago
        [dead]
    • anematode 1 hour ago
      Perhaps a bad argument, but for some people a very compelling one...
  • bartwaardenburg 1 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?
    • dleeftink 1 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...

    • aledevv 1 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 :)

  • chattermate 58 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • eknkc 26 minutes ago
    I thought I hated React until I saw the samples on this page...