choose-mithril VS lit

Another selling aspect for me is the dirty checks mithril uses and how efficient the redrawing engine runs. While not a Svelte/Mithril comparison, this write up explains some the key goodies of mithril.

Hi Leo. Thanks for creating Mithril.

Likewise at work I currently have to deal with React and its challenges. I have previously built other applications in Mithril (and still do in my spare time). I much prefer Mithril. But sadly React has so much more mindshare which was persuasive to management despite that. The only plus to that is that I can increasingly see firsthand how better the developer ergonomics are for Mithril over React, and eventually wrote the essay about that linked below.

As an example on libraries and React patterns, the emphasis on Redux for React in particular can rapidly create messy bloated codebases that are hard to maintain. That is due to the accidental complexity in React by its premature optimization of requiring use of setState() on components to queue redraws and then how Redux tries to wrap that to support global state. Mithril by contrast makes it possible for developers to store state however they want by the brilliance of (by default) just assuming any time the user touches the UI (via anything with an added event handler like for a button press) that the UI needs to be rerendered (unless the developer choose otherwise).

Here's a longer list of reasons why I prefer Mithril to React: https://github.com/pdfernhout/choose-mithril "l;dr: Choose Mithril whenever you can for JavaScript UI development because Mithril is overall easier to use, understand, debug, refactor, and maintain than most other JavaScript-based UI systems. That ease of use is due to Mithril's design emphasis on appropriate simplicity – including by leveraging the power of JavaScript to define UIs instead of using an adhoc templating system. Mithril helps you focus on the essential complexity of UI development instead of making you struggle with the accidental complexity introduced by problematically-designed tools. Many popular tools emphasize ease-of-use through looking familiar in a few narrow situations instead of emphasizing overall end-to-end simplicity which -- after a short learning curve for Mithril -- leads to greater overall ease-of-use in most situations."

You rock, Leo!!! Thanks again for making the programming world a better place.

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/