immaculatalibrary.com VS lit

Where is an example? https://github.com/sdegutis/immaculatalibrary.com/tree/main/... ?

Overall I'm not super happy with web components to solve the issues of reusability, conciseness, and self-containment.

The most direct problem is styling issues. Cross-component CSS in either direction has some serious limitations. I've written a little bit about it[1] in my blog but the short version is that there are some things that simply become absolutely impossible when using web components.

My main other gripe with them is the need for a build phase. The nature of WC almost begs for them to eventually become zero-build-time, but right now this just isn't practical. It requires too much boilerplate in every .html file (utf8 is broken on my site), the syntax isn't natively there even with tagged template literals, and there's no concept of data-list-fetching or data-based file generation.

There's a branch on my personal website[2] where I tried to start using web components, and it was so problematic that I long abandoned it.

Overall, I abandoned web components entirely in favor of making my own customized JSX-based SSG from scratch[3] which solves the same problems Lit, Next.js, et al. are intended to solve, but in a completely different way: using components for convenience, conciseness, and reusability, but only at the build-phase time. So far it's a well kept secret, which is probably good since it's been evolving so quickly that I wouldn't have been happy with any iteration being widely adopted so far. (Though I think this morning I finished off most of what I was unhappy with.)

[1]: https://sdegutis.github.io/articles/2023-08-07-modern-90s-we...

[2]: https://github.com/sdegutis/immaculatalibrary.com/tree/reset...

[3]: https://github.com/sdegutis/immaculatalibrary.com

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/