crank VS solid

If you enjoy this approach, you might enjoy the Crank JS framework. https://crank.js.org/

> Crank uses generator functions to define stateful components. You store state in local variables, and `yield` rather than `return` to keep it around.

I'm very interested in seeing if using the commonly implemented forms of compiler support for async programming can also be well used for GUI programming. One wishawa[0] is also perusing this approach in Rust but I first came upon this idea from the crank-js[1] authors. It wasn't clear to me why that one never went anywhere. Was it failure with the approach or was React just a good solution in the space? I can say this though, there's something strikingly elegant about those initial samples of using JavaScript generators for components.

[0]: https://github.com/wishawa/async_ui

[1]: https://github.com/bikeshaving/crank

Take a look at crank.js, a JavaScript framework where components can be written as async functions or as generators. It seems similar to what you're trying to do :)

Well there's https://crank.js.org that uses native js generators where you would you normally put hooks in. Never used it but looked like a very neat idea.

Reminds me of https://github.com/bikeshaving/crank, which was rather fun for a PoC I made a while back.

Strictly speaking, the framework hides this complexity away, but it still exists and it is the framework that's now paying the extra cost. Of course a framework is allowed, and should, when possible, hide away these things. For example Crank.js uses generators to allow for async Components as first class citizens, https://github.com/bikeshaving/crank, but they're still having to deal with the pitfalls of asynchronous work.

To give the author of https://crank.js.org/ due credit, after reading through the descriptive posts I was impressed by the amount of thought and design that went into it.

> What do you propose as an alternative?

There are lots of alternatives, but perhaps the simplest would have been to use async generators. This is how Crank[0] (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) works, and it allows you to do anything (AFAIK) that's possible with hooks with a much simpler and more testable API.

> So, sure, there are limitations and rules you have to pay attention to with hooks... but that's just programming.

No, it's not. The biggest problem with React hooks is that they are not composed of transferable knowledge, meaning memorizing these rules and patterns does not transfer outside of React; likewise, I can't use much of the knowledge I have already built up over many years of my career when using hooks. It's the same argument that's made against Rails, where you have to learn tons of Rails-specific idioms (on top of having to understand general concepts like relational database access patterns) instead of just writing code in a way that's more direct and intuitive for anyone.

My brain has limited RAM. The more things I have to keep in my head when developing against an API, the more likely I am to make a mistake. With every release of React, I seem to have to keep more and more of these details in my brain as I work. Contrast this with something like Svelte, where you really only need to fully grok about two concepts to use it effectively. I understand that this is the tradeoff the React team made, but I'm not convinced it's worth it.

[0]: https://crank.js.org/ and https://crank.js.org/blog/introducing-crank

The reactivity core, which is in https://github.com/solidjs/solid This is where you'll see the reactivity runtime implementation. Take note that Solid's reactivity doesn't rely on compile-time magic

I did try this but I'm not sure what you mean with the ssrLoadFrom. Is there any documentation on this, all I could find was the examples folder in solidjs: solid-ssr?

This is very true. I really hate svelte single file components. But then I tried JSX for breaking things down. I love solid but I don't feel really good about angle brackets within C style syntax. I saw this Scala library that stick with simple statically typed function syntax than html tags. I don't understand why people still wants to stick with xml like tags. In laminar markup is written like this scala div( h1("Hello world", color := "red"), inputCaption, input(inputMods, name := "fullName"), div( ">>", button("Submit"), "<<" ) ) I wish solid team makes their HyperScript syntax as performant as JSX.

What is Solid?

import logo from './logo.svg'; import styles from './App.module.css'; import 'flowbite'; function App() { return (

Edit src/App.jsx and save to reload.

Learn Solid, Tailwind CSS and Flowbite Toggle Flowbite modal

Terms of Service

svg> Close modal

With less than a month to go before the European Union enacts new consumer privacy laws for its citizens, companies around the world are updating their terms of service agreements to comply.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R.) goes into effect on May 25 and is meant to ensure a common set of data rights in the European Union. It requires organizations to notify users as soon as possible of high-risk data breaches that could personally affect them.

I accept Decline

); } export default App;

There is example of each technique in Solid's main repo: https://github.com/solidjs/solid/tree/main/packages/solid-ssr/examples

I basically came up with an idea that is much like flutter's bloc pattern, and probably waht ryansolid was referring to in his reply to this issue when he said he made his own version of redux that codifies state changes instead of immutable state.

After seeing how inactive this sub was, I took it to Github: https://github.com/solidjs/solid/discussions/1440