cami.js VS lit

Preact requires a build step otherwise you don't get JSX and you have to build applications a la mithril.js mode:

> const app = h('h1', null, 'Hello World!');

With Web Components no build step is required and you're still able to build JSX'ish code. See the code below this section: https://github.com/kennyfrc/cami.js#key-concepts--api

Yes, the lib's great!

Unfortunately I haven't thought much yet about interoperability with other web components libraries like lit. I imagined folks would choose just one web component library over the other.

That said, you can initialize reactive properties(1), but property bindings won't work if there's a parent LitElement (as my reactive properties need to be called with either a .value method or an .update method for getting and setting respectively).

As of the moment, what's possible is interop with other cami elements using a store, and in a future version, i'm considering a richer event system for external javascript code to listen to.

---

(1) Initializing is possible with observerableAttr: https://github.com/kennyfrc/cami.js/blob/master/examples/008...

The author is getting a bit of heat, and I think rightfully so. Here is the "tool" he's all bragging about: https://github.com/kennyfrc/cami.js/blob/master/src/cami.js

The whole thing is 250 Loc half of which is comments. And not to discount on that (Redux itself is not that big, though the ecosystem is). But this tool/project could be just a few blog posts where the author explains the patterns/libraries he is using.

It also doesn't help that his blog post/tool has the highest concentration of buzzword language you can expect. Please don't do that.

This course focused on Web Components via Lit. I think we spent a single week (two classes) learning the foundations of web development. Never taught us a single line of HTML, told us to google CSS, and spent that first week showing us what JavaScript does. Personally wish we spent some more time understanding the foundations, but even if I don't know exactly what I am doing... I have been able to accomplish some great stuff.

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/