| ▲ | giancarlostoro 14 hours ago |
| Template partials look good, which is one of the key reasons frameworks like React are as good and popular as they are, because you can reuse small segments of code. |
|
| ▲ | littlecranky67 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Key benefit for reusability and composability in React is IMHO that they don't use templates at all, but everything is a function. |
| |
| ▲ | globular-toast 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. There are a few libraries to achieve a similar thing in Python: * https://htpy.dev/ * https://pypi.org/project/fast_html/ * https://fastht.ml/ (different to above, I think) * https://github.com/volfpeter/fasthx Probably others. I strongly prefer this to templating, but I find it makes dyed in the wool Django people squirm. | | |
| ▲ | Induane 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There are a lot of cool things about these, one that they are less typo prone and also they are often much faster. The downside is I find them hard to read. I think the template approach isn't quite right and yet neither is the functional approach. At the end of the day these are a type of tree structure; I think we could conjure a new mechanism that gets the best of most/both worlds. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | apothegm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The most obvious value here is for HTMX, which requires a lot of partial templates. |
|
| ▲ | squidsoup 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| React allows for encapsulation of state in a reusable component, its more than just templating. |
| |
| ▲ | renegade-otter 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | React also requires you to know the long list of do's and dont's and is littered with minefields that most average developers are not even aware of. Everyone just busts out "React" for every small thing, but few commit to actually learning this pretty complicated technology. The last two recent Cloudflare outages were because of React. |
|
|
| ▲ | simonw 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're a neat design. I started using them on my blog the other day as part of trying out Django 6: https://github.com/simonw/simonwillisonblog/blob/faec3532183... |
|
| ▲ | pier25 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Amazing that Django didn't have this until 2025 |
| |
|
| ▲ | chistev 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But you could already reuse templates in Django by including them. What am I missing? |
| |
| ▲ | teagee 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Check out the HTMX example in the blog, this helped me better understand how it could be used https://adamj.eu/tech/2025/12/03/django-whats-new-6.0/#rende... | | |
| ▲ | The_Fox 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm an avid HTMX user but never did I ever think "I'm using so many includes, I wish I didn't have to use include so much." What I would like is a way to cut down the sprawl of urls and views. | | |
| ▲ | adparadox 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do a check for `request.htmx` in my views and conditionally return a template partial as needed. This reduced my need for one-off view functions that were only returning partials for htmx. Works pretty well from my experience. |
|
| |
| ▲ | WD-42 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Partialdef inline is the real win. Lets you define parts of a page without needing to place them in another file. Reduces the mental overhead of imagining how the inclusion will look because it’s already there. The use case is mainly driven by htmx where you will have lots of these partials and the view code renders them as individual responses. | |
| ▲ | JodieBenitez 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's just syntactic sugar, making life a bit easier for HTMX users (cf. "htmx was the main motivation for this feature"). I'm using Unpoly and I just render the whole page and let Unpoly swap the content according to the target selectors, so no need for this. Not much difference in perf if you dont generate gigantic pages with heavy header/footer. |
|
|
| ▲ | agumonkey 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| indeed the vintage templating was a logical bottleneck |
| |
| ▲ | f311a 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is it different from include? Just less files from my perspective | | |
| ▲ | simonw 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The "inline partials" feature is neat, means you can use and define a partial at the same time. The way you can render just a named partial from both the render() shortcut and the include tag is nice too: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/6.0/ref/templates/language... | | |
| ▲ | f311a 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but I was doing the same thing 10 years ago with include mixed with extends and blocks. I can just include a file inside a template or render it directly. |
| |
| ▲ | agumonkey 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you're kinda right, {% partial ... %} vs {% include ... %} is not a big difference, but my mind was vaguely thinking that "includes" have often been seen as large templates, whereas partial have been after the component era with the idea of making small blocks. (my 2 cents) | |
| ▲ | chistev 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I asked the same question |
|
|
|
| ▲ | wahnfrieden 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There've been a variety of open source attempts at this idea. Is this official one now the best to use, or are the others still compelling? |
| |
