uhtml VS lit

I have to say that I am an extremist minimalist, so I use a nano-framework I developed for the frontend, with uhtml (https://github.com/WebReflection/uhtml) and some JavaScript libraries to help.

One of the main decisions I had to make early on was template handling, there are many approaches out there and of course, with React being the king, I first tried implementing a VirtualDOM complete with JSX support and whatnot... well that didn't really worked for what I was trying to achieve, so I moved into Tagged Template Literals (through µhtml) and tried to stick to standards as much as possible by building on top of the Custom Elements API.

FAST rendering thanks to µhtml

Challenge: With declarative rendering, oftentimes entire DOM trees are re-painted because of simple prop or state changes that could have been handled faster by imperative DOM manipulation. I wanted a framework that, like Lit, only updated content or attributes that had changed instead of re-painting entire DOM elements and trees. Solution: I chose µhtml for the default templating system because it accomplishes this goal and other advanced templating features in a tiny bundle size. To make rendering even faster and smoother, I throttled uhtml's rendering using requestAnimationFrame.

> There are lighter-weight shadow dom frameworks out there (than Vue/React/Angular) so why would you want to write one yourself?

You can even avoid a shadow DOM entirely:

https://github.com/WebReflection/domdiff

https://github.com/WebReflection/uhtml

My next goal would be to discard snabbdom (and virtualdom) and use custom elements. For that I'm evaluating a library like https://github.com/WebReflection/uhtml and all it's ecosystem of utility

Yep ditched React since 2015, it's still the same mess today. They all not trying to encourage interoperability, and comes with their own build .. seriously? Frontend should be just libs! Use https://github.com/WebReflection/uhtml or lit-html where things should be highly dynamic.

If it's for getting into job market, go for React. If it's for learning declarative ui, build cool stuff real quick without tooling, go with lit-html or bravely go with https://github.com/WebReflection/uhtml (it's more simple than anything else, yet powerful)

A tiny dom lib like https://github.com/WebReflection/uhtml is more than enough for very complicated UI, with understanding how events work, will be able to implement very thin state management on top. With game programming styled manual render() call here and there as needed, pretty neat.

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/