pianojacq VS lit

As someone who does this too: it depends. If you take time out every now and then to completely refactor your code base it can actually be surprisingly effective. I've done exactly that on my last project and I'm pretty happy with the end result, you can have a look for yourself:

https://gitlab.com/jmattheij/pianojacq/-/tree/master/js

This project will likely never be finished, there are always nice new things to add or requests from people, there is no commercial pressure because it is a hobby project and I don't have a boss to answer to. And even if such refactoring operations take me two weeks or more (this one I did while I was mostly just working on a laptop without access to a keyboard so it was sometimes tricky to ensure that nothing broke) in the end it is worth it to me because I am also paying the price for maintaining the code and if it is messy then I would stop working on it.

The project moves forward in fits and starts, sometimes I work on it for weeks on end and sometimes it is dormant for months. In a commercial setting or in a much larger team I don't think this approach would work.

Two things:

- adding interactivity to a web page vs building an application. Those are not the same thing, and what you read applies to the first

- there's a widely accepted belief that vanilla js is not suitable to build apps. I don't buy in this belief. I have a built networked Scrabble game written in vanilla js. Both the backend and the frontend. This simplicity allowed external contributors not well versed in the modern web stack to contribute. I also was able to enter the code of Pianojacq (from jaquesm) [1] and contribute quite easily because he also chose vanilla js. This simplicity is very valuable, and lost with modern framework, and nobody is really concerned about this.

I've done some React development, so I know my way in a modern app. I've also contributed to a frontend written in Vue. I think they solve problems but bring complexity to the table, in particular the tooling (bundlers, minifiers, etc), the dependencies and the debugging being much harder.

It seems DOM manipulation through native browser API scares many people, but when it's what you are familiar with, your usual "framework", it's manageable. You need to be disciplined to avoid things getting messy (a discipline frameworks partially enforce), but I really believe you can go far with vanilla js.

I believe React & Co are often picked to ease beginners' contribution, but they actually do require expertise. I'd rather touch vanilla js code from a beginner or an experienced developer than a React code from a beginner.

It's a matter of taste. Vanilla JS has the taste of fresh air to me. It's zen. You write the code and it runs. No tools, no slow compilation, no minification that complexifies the debugging. Minification which is only useful because with those framework you bundle an awful quantity of code in the first place. Yes, source maps exists but they don't do everything.

But today you won't have access to the whole ecosystem of existing React components with vanilla JS. It might be a curse or a benediction.

[1] https://gitlab.com/jmattheij/pianojacq

As for 1) yes, I can do that, the reason it is set where it is right now is because very soft keypresses on real pianos with sensorbars installed are typically fingers brushing keys on the way to other keys and these false triggers leave a lot of errors that aren't really errors. I'll make that setting configurable.

2) yes, if you look in the 'midi' directory on the gitlab site ( https://gitlab.com/jmattheij/pianojacq/-/tree/master/midi , but also linked from the application) there are whole bunch of them that all should work well

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/