I think this is a fun and endearing project that the author should be proud of, and that id happily consider using in place of react or such.
However I don’t really see it as doing anything new. It sells “progressive enhancement” as a unique tenet, but then goes on to explain it’s just hydration which is available in a lot of competing frameworks.
It sells “separation of concerns” but that’s just redefining the term as separation of content from logic. Ultimately, you need to link your styles to your content and your logic to your components; I don’t see how this is any different from Vue for example. Worse, it removes scoped styles which I, and many, would argue is a worse separation of concerns by its actual academic definition.
Again, I commend the author, but I’d really think about reframing the whole sales pitch in terms of why it’s different or better rather than relying on buzzwords throughout.
I think this is a fun and endearing project that the author should be proud of, and that id happily consider using in place of react or such.
However I don’t really see it as doing anything new. It sells “progressive enhancement” as a unique tenet, but then goes on to explain it’s just hydration which is available in a lot of competing frameworks.
It sells “separation of concerns” but that’s just redefining the term as separation of content from logic. Ultimately, you need to link your styles to your content and your logic to your components; I don’t see how this is any different from Vue for example. Worse, it removes scoped styles which I, and many, would argue is a worse separation of concerns by its actual academic definition.
Again, I commend the author, but I’d really think about reframing the whole sales pitch in terms of why it’s different or better rather than relying on buzzwords throughout.
Compared to react/Vue/etc.:
Why is your version of hydration better?
Why is your templating better?
Why is your component architecture better?