Putting ReactJS or VueJS for a little interactivity is hardly the correct approach. It makes no sense to bring them in for "a little". What made React and React-like (Angular v2, Vue.js) frameworks stabilise is that they're about the right abstractions and everything else for managing dynamic html converges to about the same thing.

▲

sgt 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In principle I agree that putting React or Vue in for a little interactivity is a bad approach, if the same can be achieved with Htmx, which it usually can.

However for some really complex mini apps, that's another story. But for the rest of those CRUD pages, you can go simple server side rendered.

▲

asdfsa32 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"Complex mini app" is one hell of a concept.

▲

skydhash 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It can be. Think something like a file viewer or a text editor, or a music players. You can probably make do with vanilla javascript, but there’s some threshold where using react to take care of the state<=>ui relationship is worth it.

▲

asdfsa32 3 hours ago | parent [-]

A text editor or music player is hardly "mini".

Again, the issue with htmx is that it pretends like it is not a framework, when in fact, it is just a second attempt at angular 1.0, with even more naive assumptions about web apps.

	▲	sgt 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Having adopted Angular 1 back when it was new, I can promise you it's completely different than Htmx.
	▲	stymaar 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> A text editor or music player is hardly "mini". If it's a sub-function of a bigger ensemble that mostly dies something else then it's fine to call them “mini apps”. For instance a bank app may contain a text editor for the internal messaging feature of the app, that would count as a min-app in that context.