es-module-shims VS lit

For full compatibility and extra features, we usually use the library es-module-shims.

You can polyfill for unsupported browsers, it works surprisingly well: https://github.com/guybedford/es-module-shims

https://github.com/guybedford/es-module-shims has a polyfill. (But it is fairly large: 53KB raw, 15KB gzipped, 32KB minified, 11KB minified+gzipped. It’s providing a lot of likely-unnecessary functionality. I’d prefer a stripped-down polyfill that can also be lazily-loaded, controlled by a snippet of at most a few hundred bytes that you can drop into the document, only loading the polyfill in the uncommon case that it’s needed—like how five years ago as part of modernising some of the code of Fastmail’s webmail, I had it fetch and execute core-js before loading the rest iff !Object.values (choosing that as a convenient baseline), so that the cost to new browsers of supporting old browsers was a single trivial branch, and maybe fifty bytes in added payload.)

If we call the shim a framework, would you be ok with it then?

If you want import maps to be supported in any browser, there is an ES Module Shims polyfill which is compatible with any browser that has baseline ES Module Support (i.e. Edge 17+, Firefox 60+, Safari 10.1+, and Chrome 61+).

An example of a polyfill that can be used is the ES Module Shims polyfill that adds support for import maps and other new module features to any browser with baseline support for ES modules (about 94% of browsers). All you need to do is include the es-module-shim script in your HTML file before your import map script:

i often use es-module-shims so i can load npm packages in browsers without a bundler 😎

I explored using client-side service workers for build-less deployment workflows a while back, but the blocker was the initial visit when the service worker hasn't been installed yet. Ended up using es-module-shim's fetch hook (https://github.com/guybedford/es-module-shims#fetch-hook) instead, which worked quite well.

I kept the demo repo around here, in case it's helpful to anyone: https://github.com/lewisl9029/buildless-hot-reload-demo.

The repo itself is quite out of date at this point, but my current project, Reflame, is essentially the spiritual successor: https://reflame.app/

Reflame has the same ideals of achieving the developer experience I've always wanted for building client rendered React apps:

- instant production deployments (usually <200ms)

- instant preview environments that match production in pretty much every imaginable way (including the URL), that can also be flipped into development mode for fast-refresh (for the seamless feedback loop we're used to in local dev) and dev-mode dependencies (for better error messaging, etc)

- close-to-instant browser tests (1-3 seconds) that enable image snapshot comparisons that run with maximum parallelism and only rerun when their dependency graphs change

The problem of course is that browser-support for Import Maps is sadly lacking (only Chrome/Chromium-based at time of writing). There are tricks/shims to get around this, like ES-Module-Shims. I find these approaches to be a little too intrusive, personally.

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/