Hard fork of both JS and HTML syntax and semantics, sans same grammar. As bad as these ratholes ever go. You'd be better off redesigning regex syntax.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @izs and
This sounds like an anti-Babel message. I feel like such a strong codemnationation of a widely used tool that is being actively encouraged by community leaders deserves a more finessed explanation - maybe a blog post?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @robpalmer2 @slightlylate and
I honestly doubt spending cycles telling web developers not to use a core tool in the most popular framework on philosophical grounds is going to do anyone any good.
@slightlylate should get back to his regularly scheduled program of berating frameworks for payload size.2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @wycats @robpalmer2 and
I also dislike jsx but I agree that the right approach is to recognize this is doing something people want that isn't satisfied by the platform yet. I prefer Vue.js' approach to templating and it's a lot easier to see something like it in the platform compared to jsx.
5 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Not saying JSX is something I like or not. I'm saying it isn't plausibly compatible. Also, a bit presumptuous to assume I don't see need or want to address it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @mikeal and
Sorry, I did not intend to presume that you aren’t interested in evaluating it, only that I think it’s a worthwhile angle for standards bodies to explore.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @izs @slightlylate and
Specifically the ability to embed an HTML-like syntax in JS without the syntactic overhead of tagged template literals?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @slightlylate and
(zooming out of the rest of this convo back to the JSX thing) What's interesting about JSX is a structured html-like way to define a JavaScript class with a dom thing that is automatically updated as properties on the object change. It's not something you'd put in HTML, it's JS.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Recall that only compatible proposal for that to date was e4x. Syntax has expanded massively since then, creating many grammar hazards. Also: which DOM types are vended? Does ECMA-262 take a hard, circular dep on faster-revving WebIDL or WHATWG DOM spec?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @izs and
The problem with e4x is that it returns live DOM nodes. It's not compatible with the functional, re-evaluate-to-update, module that React has popularized. HTML-in-JS needs to return something that's not *yet* DOM.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You could return live DOM here too (WC instances). Their lifecycle is composer-defined. JSX folds all assumptions down to React's slowest-of-all-worlds model. Platform would need diversity (alarm template tagging)
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.