Isn't plausibly compatible because...
-
-
The grammar and syntax.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @mikeal and
You think it is likely to come into conflict with other future JS extensions? Or are you saying JSX is not HTML?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @slightlylate and
Putting HTML, in JS, forever.

Why!!!???1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @wycats and
Putting parsers aside I just don't get what people want to achieve with standardized JSX???
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ramlmn @slightlylate and
People want to use JSX without a transpile step. Doesn’t seem weird to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That’s all fine and good, but JSX is designed in a way that is well integrated into compilers and not designed in a way that could be as easily integrated into the web platform. It’s obvious historically why it was done this way, and likely would not be this popular if it hadn’t
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
“use jsx” at the top of a scope
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @richardiii @mikeal and
This only forks the language further. As your friendly local VM/compiler engineer how much they like modes!
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
s/As/Ask/ I'm the worst at this.
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.