riot VS hyperapp

how about getting a hold of your sanity and allowing yourself a few hours to learn https://riot.js.org/ - almost no learning curve, only pure awesomeness. even if you won't use it in the enterprise (because policies, bla bla), it is still worth knowing things can be done differently - in a good way.

Riot.js prides itself as a light and simple UI library that helps developers hit the ground running when creating elegant UIs for their applications.

Thanks! Glad you like it. I'm the original author of Riot (https://riot.js.org/) so that's the style of frontend development I'm most comfortable with. We're using our own flavour of the library, which has the original super-mimimalistic feel on it.

Personally, I try my best to avoid bringing in dependencies as much as possible, and try to limit my exposure to only dependencies with low/shallow transitive dependency counts. Unfortunately, this is pretty hard, especially in corporate settings. What we need more of are the opposite of what we've been collectively praising: we need more monolithic packages. Case in point: lodash.template is currently vulnerable with no mitigation, even though lodash itself is not. That's just sloppy publishing practices. Esbuild is a great start over the webpack/babel maze of dependencies. There's a stdlib effort along those lines that hopefully would also help. There's a bunch of micro-frameworks that are used in production just fine and have little to no dependencies.

Even better than JSX is straight up hyperscript or something like @hyperapp/html[1]. JSX feels like a cumbersome attachment in comparison.

[1] https://github.com/jorgebucaran/hyperapp/tree/main/packages/...

> JSX is valid JS. It is converted down to the same thing as what you describe, function calls to React.createElement().

This is disingenuous. Browsers do not understand JSX, nor do most JavaScript engines. TypeScript also gets transpiled to JavaScript -- it is not valid JavaScript in and of itself, you require a build step. We can argue semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what I meant.

> You could even alias all the elements to function names

You've just recreated what I mentioned two comments above in this same comments thread. :) See: https://github.com/jorgebucaran/hyperapp/tree/main/packages/...

This is what I'm arguing for over something like JSX.

Using a proxy to create elements! While this clearly applies to Hyperapp (a "tiny framework for building hypertext applications"), there's no reason why this couldn't apply to vanilla JS.

The extension was originally written using vanilla JavaScript in 2015. As the codebase grew in complexity, it became difficult to maintain the UI. I wanted a tiny framework to help me organise the interface into components. I chose hyperapp for its small bundle size and seemingly easy API. It wasn’t that straightforward to learn after all and the documentation was lacking at the time.

Like the other frameworks we’ve looked at so far, Hyperapp is not very popular. However, its small community actively works to improve the framework. At the time of this post, Hyperapp does not have a website and its documentation is not nearly as detailed as Vue’s. To learn more about how Hyperapp works, check out this simple tutorial that its creators developed.

I'm currently working on a game using Hyperapp , it's small and very focused UI framework. It might be worth a look if you've used React or similar elsewhere. I'm still working through integrating it so I can't yet say whether it's a good fit for incremental games. Let me know what you think.

Hyperapp isn’t really that new. It’s been around since the end of 2016 and gained a lot of popularity over this period. It’s gained over 18K GitHub stars on its repo and over 2.5K weekly downloads on NPM.

You should checkout Hyperapp sometime (https://github.com/jorgebucaran/hyperapp), I'd love to switch to it if I could ever wrap my head around how state works 😵