The evolution of lit is fascinating to watch because it's built and promoted by people with rather visible and public dislike of everything React. And yet, it's already turned into React-lite.

- Custom HTML-like syntax

    <button @click="" .disabled="" />

- Custom Javascript rules

    // valid JS, invalid lit
    const tagName= "a";
    
    `<${tagName} href="">Some link</${tagName}>`

- Custom rules for special functions.

    // classMap looks like a regular JS function, but it's not.
    // Both of these will produce an error
    
    <div class="my-widget ${classMap(dynamicClasses)}  ${classMap(dynamicClasses)}">Static and dynamic</div>

    <div data-class="${classMap(dynamicClasses)}">Static and dynamic</div>

- Context https://lit.dev/docs/data/context/

- Experimental compiler: https://github.com/lit/lit/tree/main/packages/labs/compiler#...

▲ jfagnani 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

You have a very large axe to grind against web components and Lit, and you show up just about everywhere to make the same comments, but I'll play along anyway:

Yes, Lit templates give some special meaning to attribute names with a few prefixes. No, it's not "HTML-like". It's valid HTML. Not that it matters much. You bring this up all the time but I'm not sure what the actual criticism is. Developers seem to understand the small syntax carve-out just fine.

No, there are no custom JavaScript rules. Templates have some rules. I'm not sure why they wouldn't? In general you can't make things like tag and attribute names dynamic because you can't change them in HTML. You can actually write the template you show with what we call static templates though.

`classMap()` is a template directive. It has some rules about how it's used in templates, just like other JS functions can have rules about how their used. I'm not sure what makes that not a function.

But to your main point: Lit is not like React because it's not a framework. Lit helps you make custom elements - it's an implementation detail of some web components. Everything else about those elements: how you instantiate them, style them, where they work, etc., is all defined by the HTML and DOM standards. React is a framework, and defines its own rules about how its components work.

▲

dtagames 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

Time to put the nail in that coffin! I use a static template to select and return components dynamically. It's a key aspect of my own internal "framework," made with Lit.

I love that I get to choose how everything works. I have custom systems for routing, styling, signals, API interactions. I control who gets passed what and when. It makes the app feel light, responsive, and -- most importantly, it fits in my head and I understand how it's put together because I chose it, not because I learned it from someone.

▲

troupo 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> You have a very large axe to grind against web components and Lit

Yes, yes I do. Because Web Components are almost 15 years now, and they still struggle with the most basic of things. How's that abandoned roadmap going? https://w3c.github.io/webcomponents-cg/2022.html

> No, there are no custom JavaScript rules. Templates have some rules.

That is "here are regular JS functions. However, you cannot use them as regular JS functions in these specific contexts". Reminds me of certain very specific rules about specific functions in specific contexts in some other framework. Can't put my finger on it.

> I'm not sure what makes that not a function.

I never said it doesn't make it a function.

> But to your main point: Lit is not like React because it's not a framework.

Yeah, React wasn't a framework either, but just a library. Everything about DOM elements that React produces, how you instantiate them, style them, where they work etc. is all defined by the HTML and DOM standards.

But then React grew in the number of features, and can no longer be called a library even though still the only thing it does is output some DOM nodes.

I guess you'll insist on Lit being "just a library" even after it adds a ton of other functionality all other frameworks already have or are moving towards.

> I'm not sure what the actual criticism is

The criticism is usual: Lit is rapidly absorbing all the features from all the other frameworks and becoming a framework itself while many of its developers and proponents can't stop shitting all over other frameworks.

▲

mariusor 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

As a third party I can't help but notice that the only one doing the "shitting" here, is you.

▲

troupo 6 days ago | parent [-]

You don't have to take only my word for it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45118434

	▲	mariusor 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure how those links support your "lit proponents shit on other JavaScript libraries/frameworks", which was my complain about your post, or if that would even warrant as an excuse for you personally being an ass to the lit's maintainer directly.

▲

mdhb 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Take this as some constructive feedback that you really come across as a miserable bastard to everyone reading your comments.

▲

Ruphin 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Web Components is a pretty niche technology and as such it really appeals to some people, and it doesn't appeal to others, and that's okay. You don't have to like it, it isn't meant to be a good fit for everyone. But for some people it might fit really well with their requirements, and they probably have legitimate reasons for that.

If I understand correctly, your criticism is that the people for whom Web Components is a good fit are publicly discussing the reasons why they prefer it over other solutions?

	▲	troupo 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		> pretty niche technology The main problem is that for a "niche technology" it sure infects too many standards, requires an insane amount of new standards and makes supporting things needlessly complicated. A few links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45114450 There are some good parts in the ~30 standards they require, but instead of just the good parts you get the whole horse, and the cart it's attached to, and the cargo in the cart. > your criticism is that the people for whom Web Components is a good fit are publicly discussing the reasons why they prefer it over other solutions? It's not.

▲

gitaarik 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ha this guy again, I recognize you too. I also don't understand your obsession with trolling on Lit and Web Components. You keep coming with the same arguments. And always very emotional. I get the feeling that it is something personal that you have against Lit / Web Components. And you're clearly a hater, and haters are gonna hate regardless of whatever happens.

I do wonder, why are you on this crusade? Are you afraid that people are at some point gonna be persuaded by Lit / Web Components, and that you need to be there to prevent that from happening?

	▲	brazukadev 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		By what I understood, I would expect him to use web components a lot even though he dislikes a few things, otherwise that would be really weird and a waste of life time.

▲ afavour 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m not one of those people but I don’t see an inherent conflict in what you’re saying. My #1 criticism of React is its size and monoculture, so a React-lite alternative sounds intriguing to me. Much like Preact, which I’ve used a ton.