Idk what’s sad about that, really. It’s a short todo list, with extremely stable reference implementations already adopted by a majority of the js community. Seems like low hanging fruit, as cowpaths go.
-
-
Putting parsers aside I just don't get what people want to achieve with standardized JSX???
-
People want to use JSX without a transpile step. Doesn’t seem weird to me.
- 15 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Wait, you said it wouldn’t be “compatible,” but it seems like your main point is that a JSX parser would be slow and memory inefficient? And that the existing parsers aren’t proof that you can parse JSX efficiently??
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

Why!!!???
We put JS in HTML all the time. The big perf issue is that the parsers can't interop today, so HTML-on-top is most efficient by a country mile. JS-on-top w/o new syntax to integrate other types is going to continue to be slow and memory-inefficient.