When I helped start the Web Components effort, a goal was to end framework wars at the component level. About time:https://twitter.com/domenic/status/769344873027829760 …
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate
The value of frameworks is moving up the stack. Time to shed the "my component model is a special snowflake" bloat.
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
...and no, this doesn't mean that Web Components are all-singing, all-dancing. Some fidelity with current practice *will* be lost. That's OK
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate
...and it's OK for same reason it was OK to not get 100% fidelity with everything you could w/ <table> + <img> to build rounded corners
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
...the difference in weight & ecosystem-wide compatibility are overwhelmingly positive. They outweigh local benefits of alternatives.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
^^^, BTW, is why it was also a good idea to push Promises into the language (despite the massive personal costs to
@domenic and myself).2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
Global benefits are just that: hard to see from your particular patch. But they are also real and they do matter.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
So, in a world where the world's most popular computers have flaky network connections and slow CPUs, anything that sheds JS is _golden_.
3 replies 8 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
anything that pushes JS into the offline part (SW) is golden. JS is needed to coordinate offline.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
as you know there's much more virtue in SW than counting JS bytes at the 10kbs level.
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.