JSLint VS lit

This is the spec for the language Douglas Crockford (author of the book "JavaScript: The Good Parts", the JSON specification[1], JSLint[2]) had explained in his famous talk: "The Next Programming Language"[3].

The "big things" in the language are the Actor model, favouring immutability and capabilities-based security.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON

[2] https://www.jslint.com/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2idkNdKqpQ

Someone should write a book about this [0] and a tool to automate checking your JavaScript code [1].

[0]: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/javascript-the-good/978...

[1]: https://www.jslint.com/

I'm working on a book called "How to not get your knickers in a twist because you neglected to learn from people who came before you."

JavaScript Linter

One way to achieve this is by using linting tools like ESLint or JSLint. These tools automatically analyze your code for errors, stylistic inconsistencies, and potential security vulnerabilities. By customizing the linting rules to align with coding standards and best practices, you can identify and rectify potential security issues early in the development process. Linting helps maintain a clean and secure codebase.

>Does this mean that in theory i could skip the build/bundling step entirely?

You can but you must write your app in something the browser understands (js not ts, css not sass etc) and use native modules. For example, here is the test harness for a custom module, written in pure html with no build step: https://github.com/javajosh/simpatico/blob/master/combine2.h.... Here is a more complex (and much older) example from Crockford: https://www.jslint.com/

And yes, the experience developing this way is quite nice!

I came across a problem where I had to find the ES6 features used by any javascript project and other data regarding their use. When I reached out to stackoverflow, I could find only one relevant post which asks you to use linters like jshint/jshint or compilers like babel. Jslint didn't seem to report anything specific to ES6 and Babel converts all the ES6+ features to ES5 but doesn't report anything regarding which constructs were used or how many times they were used. However, Jshint reported all ES6 features used in the code along with some metadata. And, to suit my needs, I ended up writing a python script that calls Jshint on all JS files in a project and presents the features used in the project and the number of times they were used across all files. You can find the code here : jsHintRunner

Javascript Linting parses and checks if any syntax is violating the rule. If a violation occurs, a warning is shown explaining unexpected behavior. Use the online version for small projects: JSLint, ESLint or JSHint. For larger projects, it is recommended to use a task runner like Gulp or Grunt. Linters ensure developers are following the best practices as a result of which few bugs appear during project development.

Programmers of classical languages hate JavaScript because it's prototype-based, dynamic and weakly typed (among other complaints). It's also the number one most in-demand programming language in 2022 according to a number of independent surveys. JSLint can help you write better JavaScript and JSMin can minify your code before deployment. These tools were created by Douglas Crockford. I would recommend his books JavaScript: The Good Parts for programmers coming to JavaScript for the first time, and How JavaScript Works for experienced JavaScript programmers.

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/