lit VS todomvc

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/

The odd thing is unison started purely as a language. Now there's a platform.

I often find the best way to understand complex things is to dig all the way back to when they were being thought up. In this case there's a blog post from 2017 that I still find useful when thinking about Unison:

https://pchiusano.github.io/2017-01-20/why-not-haskell.html

Key quote:

Composability is destroyed at program boundaries, therefore extend these boundaries outward, until all the computational resources of civilization are joined in a single planetary-scale computer

(With the open sourcing of the language I doubt it will be one computer anymore, but it's an interesting window into the original idea)

Personally I find there's a lot to this. It's interesting that we're really, really good at composing code within a program. I can map, filter, loop and do whatever I want to nested data structures with complete type safety to my heart's content. My editor's autocompleting, docs are showing up on hover, it's easy to test, all's well.

But as soon as I want cron involved, and maybe a little state-- this is all wrecked. Also deployment gets more annoying as they talk about a lot.

So I think Unison always had to have a platform to support bringing this stuff into the language, even though they built the language first.

I'd love to hear some opinions from outside Unison about how they like using this language, tooling and hosting.

I'd like to hear this too.

Also, it would be great if there was something like https://eugenkiss.github.io/7guis/ or https://todomvc.com/ for platforms that we could use to compare Unison, AWS, etc etc. Or is there already a 7GUIs for platforms that I don't know about?

git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc.git

The problem with this question is that, if it's not engineering, what is it? A better question is motivated by studying the history of chemistry and its progenitor, alchemy. That is: is software development alchemy or chemistry?

Software development alchemy. Just like alchemy, software dev is not standardized, everyone has their own idiosyncratic naming systems, classifications and rules-of-thumb. Like alchemists, software engineers are often jealous of their proprietary knowledge. Just like alchemists, they admired, feared and loathed for having secret knowledge. And just like alchemists, you have to be exceedingly brilliant to work in such a chaotic field and get anything done.

What changed alchemy into chemistry, and what is the analog to that in software? Arguably the change started with notion of conservation of mass and energy, and the development of the periodic table (thanks to Lavoisier and Mendeleev, respectively). As for what that analog is for software, first we need a characterization of the field. With alchemy and chemistry both, it's essentially mixing stuff together, heating and cooling it, and seeing what happens. But what is it for software?

Software engineering is often mistaken for computer science. Computer science is a tiny subset of software engineering. In practice, almost all of computer science is encapsulated in a few, tiny standard libraries - the places where bubble-sorts and hash maps live. (This mistake is consistent, and leads to "leet code" style interview questions which are irrelevant to actual work). I'd characterize software engineering as the set of solutions to a boundary value problem[0] described as "a set of interacting screens with behaviors pleasing to humans". The current solutions to this problem have been idiosyncratically shaped by resource constraints that rapidly relaxed over time[1], and characterized by elements discovered at random by necessity: e.g. kernels, processes, files, procedures, terminals, etc. In this analysis "language" functions as a kind of "coordinate system" as in physics[2][3], within which each of these elements are described, and within which elements are combined to make new elements, which eventually yield a solution to the boundary problem (which is termed "application").

I don't particularly know what the standardization of software engineering will look like, but I'm certain that this analysis, or something similar to it, is the first steps in the right direction. Personally, I look forward to the day we can shed the considerable weight of our alchemical origins.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_value_problem

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system

3 - https://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code - the same problem is solved in many languages. For applications: https://todomvc.com/

Compare the source code at https://todomvc.com/ to see what various frameworks bring to the table. VanillaJS is generally 2-3x as much code since you have to implement the MVC logic yourself.

There is an example (not mine) of AnjularJS controllers, how much JS I have to write:https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/tree/gh-pages/architecture-examples/angularjs/js

Learn by doing. You could recreate the TodoMVC app.

How easy or hard to build Shopify without zero coding experience? Shopify is a big thing =) So that would be hard to build with zero coding experience. Start with a todo list, micro blog, or something small in scope that interests you. https://todomvc.com/ is interesting since it is the identical app, written in many different ways, different languages and frameworks - and you can use them as reference to see how others have built something.