pagoda VS Laminar

Recently, I have stumbled across this one: https://github.com/mikestefanello/pagoda

I'd like to make a small plug for a really awesome Golang web development starter kit I found recently called pagoda (https://github.com/mikestefanello/pagoda). It wires up HTMX, together with Alpine.js and Bulma CSS, onto a really fantastic collection of Go libraries on the back end.

Well said. The 'no big framework' thing works for Go because the Go standard library defines a common way for dealing with HTTP. The difficulty, then, is identifying 3rd party packages that play well with the rest of the ecosystem.

You can see the opposite in projects like Echo, Gin, Beego, etc., that eschew the standard library to various degrees and try to build the kitchen sink themselves. Sometimes this works! Echo is very popular, despite having nonstandard handlers and context. An absolute Go newbie is probably going to have an easier time using it than trying to pick out the best collection of libraries themselves.

I would love to see more 'blessed stack' collections that tie together good libraries such as this one: https://github.com/mikestefanello/pagoda

The readme doesn't seem to mention or list what libraries this depends on, it has chi and jet at least based on the structs section.

Given this "framework" is predominantly a collection of other people's (usually apache/mit) work, where is the BOM/licence text including all of the dependencies?

And why has the author attempted to licence their likely sub 100 lines of glue code under the GPL?

I don't see the point in using something like this which is basically a prefilled go.mod with some other files with a pretty stock organization.

I've used Pagoda (https://github.com/mikestefanello/pagoda) in the past which makes a show of displaying its nature as a wrapper around a bunch of community libraries, and is documented as such. They also make effort to document the interfaces for each component so you could easily replace them with your own implementations to avoid getting stuck due to the "framework". This is my preferred approach for all of these "starters" now since using pagoda.

I recently came across https://github.com/mikestefanello/pagoda - which is also a very good starter kit. Unfortunately it comes with some tools I personally don't like a lot (yet) - like htmlx for templates. I suppose this is a problem of all starters - you can only build one which is ideal for you, but not for others. But anyway it's simpler to remove/replace unnecessary parts than create everything from scratch.

Pagoda looks really nice

My quite niche open source project broke this threshold last year, via Github sponsorships. Of course, I put a lot of time into it, so it's not "passive income" or even "market rate income", but still, without these sponsorships I wouldn't be able to work on it so much.

The project is Laminar, a UI library for Scala.js https://laminar.dev

I've noticed that Laminar and the newly released Kyo point that they don't use a lot of macros as a feature. Laminar says "Easy to understand: no macros", while Kyo emphasizes "Note: defer is currently the only macro in Kyo. All other features use regular language constructs." It seems that using less macros is something library users will like.

https://laminar.dev/ might be what you need. Though I wish there was a more beginner friendly (I'm not from front-end world) tutorial for me to follow along.

Have you looked at Laminar and Tyrian? Especially Tyrian seems to be close to what you're looking for.

For Scala there is Laminar, which has an even flashier website with nice docs. I haven't tested it out though, as I have never used Scala.

I found this scala library called Laminar which looks super similar to solid. They use signals and has no virtual dom. State changes are represented by signals and events by event streams. Thus they seems to have feature parity with RXJS as they can model all sorts of async stuff. Best part is they get to keep writing their markup in C-style syntax than XML based JSX. It looks super elegant,minimalist and has type safety.

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.

Laminar (Scala framework) hasn't been mentioned yet so dropping it here as an awesome framework that support HTML-over-the-wire. It can be used together with React, HTMX, and many other frontend frameworks -- but doesn't have to be.

https://laminar.dev/

Scala.js core itself, which I maintain, does not need much innovation. We support all of Scala, and interact with any JavaScript library. That's what the core promises.

If you want to compare to Scala 3, it's worth pointing out that you can use Scala.js with any Scala version >= 2.12.2. In particular, you can use it with Scala 3 and benefit from all its innovations. ;)

Innovation comes mainly from libraries, notably UI libraries. Laminar (https://laminar.dev/) is a great example.

In terms of roadmap, we are mostly working on "boring" stuff: improving performance (of the generated code, and of the linker), fixing bugs when they get reported, etc.

Perhaps, when Wasm gets more features for deeper interoperability with JavaScript (manipulating objects notably), we will take another look at targeting Wasm. People usually expect all languages to target Wasm now, "because it's fast". Truth is, it's fast for languages with linear memory. There is no evidence yet that it will be fast for memory-managed languages with objects and virtual dispatch.