Comment by replwoacause
2 years ago
Nothing to be disappointed in here AFAICT, however, it’s shocking that you had to Google HTMX, seeing as it shows up on HN a few times a month at least.
2 years ago
Nothing to be disappointed in here AFAICT, however, it’s shocking that you had to Google HTMX, seeing as it shows up on HN a few times a month at least.
I'm guessing the disappointing feeling come from parent saying "Pff, I'm so tired of all these libraries that eventually update their APIs in a breaking way, so now I'm using X" while X is just another library exactly like all the rest, and will surely introduce a breaking change or two down the line.
HTMX is not _exactly_ like the rest. It's far simpler than the others, e.g. by not requiring a build step, being pure JS and just having a smaller scope overall. Hot/cold isn't binary.
One of the contributors to the project wrote about the issue here: https://htmx.org/essays/no-build-step/
You're arguing from the abstract point of view, rather than the practical. The point is that it takes an order of magnitude more time to clone, say, a Vue project from three years ago that nobody has touched since then and try to download your dependencies and build on a new machine, as compared to an HTMX project.
As if "npm/yarn install" wouldn't work for the hypothetical Vue project? A charitable interpretation of what you're saying is that you cannot clone a vue project from three years ago, update all dependencies to the latest version, and expect that to work. But then, how is it different for HTMX, other than for the fact that 1. it's younger 2. you don't have the ecosystem around it to update - but that also means you're doing less or redoing everything yourself.
4 replies →