| ▲ | austin-cheney 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That is an irrational comparison. There is no comparison between components and something imaginary or theoretical. The comparison is between components and not imposing components into the standards, which are both well known conditions. People don't need components. They want components because that is the convention familiar to them. This is how JavaScript got classes. Everybody knew it is a really bad idea to put that into the standards and that classes blow out complexity, but the noise was loud enough that they made it in for no utility reason. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | DrScientist 2 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> People don't need components. The idea that people don't want some sort of improved modularity, encapsulation, reusability, interop etc I think is wrong. We can argue about whether components as proposed was the right solution, but are you arguing that templates, custom elements and modules have no utility? Templating, for example, has been implemented in one form or another countless times - the idea that people don't need that seems odd. Same goes for a js module system, same goes for hiding markup soup behind a custom element. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||