Brad makes an important point here: JSX is a proprietary language which is *not* on a trajectory to standardisation. Investing in it means taking on that toolchain *forever*.https://twitter.com/brad_frost/status/1002586347448815616 …
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate
Abstractions like JSX or other templating languages are a actually commitment to building on top of the standardized APIs, which we have been given no choice but to leverage... *forever*.
Abstractions are fine. The biggest struggle is keeping the cost down.1 reply 0 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @BenLesh @slightlylate
There's always been this struggle, where the dev masses seem to find huge benefits to abstractions on top of standardized APIs, but the abstractions rarely make it to a standards trajectory. So we're stuck with the hard job of balancing developer ergonomics and app size.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @BenLesh @slightlylate
There's a big disconnect between web developers, web framework developers, browser developers and standards bodies. IMO, none of them, as a group, are really good at understanding the others' struggles because each one of them has a full time job doing their part.
3 replies 10 retweets 83 likes -
Replying to @BenLesh @slightlylate
It seems to me that standards should not chase developer ergonomics and UX at all, because those are changing faster than standarts ever can. Instead standards should focus on low level apis userland libs need. This is especially true because of backward compatibility.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
As one of the folks who helped write this, I agree to some extent: https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/ But there's a balance to be had here: we need less code for the mobile world. That means moving some things into the platform that were previously userland.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
I talked about that tension here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8Lmg5Gobw …
1 reply 3 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @BenLesh
Btw. what if web had a versioned standard library, quick standardization process through versioning and ability to accommodate to the DX and UX though the ability to deprecate things?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I think versioning would to a lot of good in terms of allowing us to optimize engines differently, but it won't solve most of the other issues in play.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
What versioning *would* open up are better trades: to get the new stuff, you have to stop doing the old/broken stuff. The difficulty of the web is that we've been doing without such a system for so long that getting uptake would take ~10 years.
-
-
...and until there's uptake, it's hard to make those trades. So there we are. The TLS transition is a pretty good parallel.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
For a sense of the challenges, ask a friendly engine implementer what they think about ES6 sloppy mode -- then stand a few feet back to avoid spittle.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.