Fable.Lit VS lit

The other major frameworks I use are tailwindcss for styling and Fable.Lit for the views.

Lit for Lit components.

The Feliz DSL https://zaid-ajaj.github.io/Feliz/ looks fairly similar to Reagent or there's Fable.Lit https://fable.io/Fable.Lit/ which is more like jsx in that you write the html directly, adding active components via interpolated string mechanisms. There is a VS Code add in that gives you html+css syntax highlighting and auto complete inside your F# files.

This is my personal favorite one when it comes to Fable options, Fable.Lit builds on top of lit.dev which is a web component library built on web standards. It brings performant straightforward and inter-framework compatible components to the F# FE landscape since Lit works with DOM elements themselves rather than abstractions you can manipulate component instances like if you were doing vanilla JavaScript except that you can use the F# safety for that.

Around September vite got traction with the vue user base and other users as well. I also studied a bit the vite source code, and even used it for some Fable material for posts. I was trying to make some awareness of Fable.Lit support for Web Components and I wanted to experiment in reality how good vite was, and boi it's awesome If you're starting new projects that depend on node tooling in my opinion, it's your best bet.

I don't know a ton about Fable, but they recently wrapped Google's Lit to allow building functional templating and web components in it: https://fable.io/Fable.Lit/

Seems like a neat project.

Try Lit.Fable today!

Check the fable.lit github repository to see also ways to interact with inter-operate Lit + React within Fable!

That is the reason why I experiment with the TiniJS framework for a while. It is a collection of tools for developing web/desktop/mobile apps using the native Web Component technology, based on the Lit library. Thank you the Lit team for creating a great tool assists us working with standard Web Component easier.

https://github.com/lit/lit/tree/main/packages/labs/virtualiz...

actually, looking at it (https://lit.dev/), i do exactly that.

I also define a `render()` and extend my own parent, which does a `replaceChildren()` with the render. And, strangely, I also call the processor `html`

I'll still stick with mine however, my 'framework' is half-page of code. I dislike dependencies greatly. I'd need to be saving thousand+ lines at least.

Here, I don't want a build system to make a website; that's mad. So I don't want lit. I want the 5 lines it takes to invoke a dom parser, and the 5 lines it takes do define a webcomp parent.

I rather like https://lit.dev/ for web components so far.

For the reactivity stuff, you might want to read https://frontendmasters.com/blog/vanilla-javascript-reactivi... - it shows a bunch of no-library-required patterns that, while in a number of cases I'd much rather use a library myself, all seems at least -basically- reasonable to me and will probably be far more comprehensible to you than whatever I'd reach for, and frameworks are always much more pleasant to approach after you've already done a bunch of stuff by banging rocks together first.

I work on Lit, which I would hesitate to call a framework, but gives a framework-like DX for building web components, while trying to keep opinions to a minimum and lock-in as low as possible.

It's got reactivity, declarative templates, great performance, SSR, TypeScript support, native CSS encapsulation, context, tasks, and more.

It's used to build Material Design, settings and devtools UIs for Chrome, some UI for Firefox, Reddit, Photoshop Web...

https://lit.dev if you're interested.

I am more a fan of the augmented style because it doesn't entrap you in dev lock-in to platforms.

The problem with frameworks, especially web frameworks, is they reimplement many items that are standard now (shadowdom, components, storage, templating, base libraries, class/async, network/realtime etc).

If you like the component style of other frameworks but want to use Web Components, Google Lit is quite nice.

Google Lit is like a combination of HTML Web Components and React/Vue style components. The great part is it is build on Web Components underneath.

[1] https://lit.dev/

From the comments I see here, it seems like people expect the Webcomponents API to be a complete replacement for a JS framework. The thing is, our frameworks should start making use of modern web APIs, so the frameworks will have to do less themselves, so can be smaller. Lit [0] for example is doing this. Using Lit is very similar to using React. Some things work different, and you have to get used to some web component specific things, but once you get it, I think it's way more pleasant to work with than React. It feels more natural, native, less framework-specific.

For state management, I created LitState [1], a tiny library (really only 258 lines), which integrates nicely with Lit, and which makes state management between multiple components very easy. It's much easier than the Redux/flux workflows found in React.

So my experience with this is that it's much nicer to work with, and that the libraries are way smaller.

[0] https://lit.dev/