6 comments

  • sgt 54 minutes ago
    Happy they did this. Htmx is a great fit for server rendering - which in many or most cases is what you should do in any case. You can always put a mini VueJS or ReactJS app inside of a template for a very custom interactivity.
    • skeptic_ai 11 minutes ago
      That’s basically a massive hack. Every real world app will need enough js that htmx will require you to put js on front end and you’ll need to hack it together. Just like we did php+js 15 years ago.
      • asdfsa32 0 minutes ago
        But it is different this time, we are going back to HTML! /s
    • asdfsa32 45 minutes ago
      Putting ReactJS or VueJS for a little interactivity is hardly the correct approach. It makes no sense to bring them in for "a little". What made React and React-like (Angular v2, Vue.js) frameworks stabilise is that they're about the right abstractions and everything else for managing dynamic html converges to about the same thing.
      • sgt 31 minutes ago
        In principle I agree that putting React or Vue in for a little interactivity is a bad approach, if the same can be achieved with Htmx, which it usually can.

        However for some really complex mini apps, that's another story. But for the rest of those CRUD pages, you can go simple server side rendered.

        • asdfsa32 30 minutes ago
          "Complex mini app" is one hell of a concept.
          • skydhash 13 minutes ago
            It can be. Think something like a file viewer or a text editor, or a music players. You can probably make do with vanilla javascript, but there’s some threshold where using react to take care of the state<=>ui relationship is worth it.
            • asdfsa32 8 minutes ago
              A text editor or music player is hardly "mini".

              Again, the issue with htmx is that it pretends like it is not a framework, when in fact, it is just a second attempt at angular 1.0, with even more naive assumptions about web apps.

  • Ralfp 1 hour ago
  • asdfsa32 1 hour ago
    Great, now you can't offload your FE to a CDN.

    But on serious note, htmx is basically a solution in the search of a problem. It is the new hype.

    Or rather, a solution that overlooks 2 decades of learnings. Yes, for a small set of projects htmx is okay, but even then, where htmx is ideal, static is king, and once static is not good enough, htmx sooner or later starts to feel like the XAML and BPEL soap.

    The fundamental problem is that it is pretending to be a declarative language while entirely imperative.

    • xutopia 26 minutes ago
      Sounds like you never worked on complex HTMX systems. They're easier to maintain, allow for easy caching of HTML fragments in a page. For higher traffic pages React just fails spectacularly.
      • asdfsa32 18 minutes ago
        How does React fail for high traffic pages? It is amazing that you would suggest I don't understand HTMX "systems" and then go make such assertion.

        I have been writing frontends since early 2000. So I have seen it all, from activex being shinny to jquery, mootools, backbonejs, angular 1.0, php, Java Spring, Go. I looked into htmx and it is very much a second attempt at angular 1.0, which I did use for some good half decade as that was the best option at the time, but sooner or later, you get sick of stuffing "little codelets" inside attributes all over the place, which is exactly what htmx does.

        If you want to understand what htmx is going to look like at scale, look at angular 1.0 projects.

        • wild_egg 6 minutes ago
          As someone who wrote a lot of angular back in the day, and who writes a lot of htmx in the current day... That comparison makes absolutely no sense.

          The only thing the 2 have in common is the use of HTML attributes for functionality. Completely different on every other axis that matters.

    • bcrosby95 24 minutes ago
      For what it's worth, your last statement is why react always felt off to me.
    • dajonker 38 minutes ago
      This feels like an uninformed, generalized opinion from someone with zero experience on the topic. Have you even used HTMX or a similar approach?

      Besides the memes, it is absolutely not hype-driven, but hypermedia driven. It asks the question: could HTML be even more powerful than it already is?

      The creators of HTMX even want to standardize core ideas of HTMX into the official HTML specification: https://triptychproject.org/ Please read this and reply when you still think it's hype.

      • asdfsa32 22 minutes ago
        I have been writing frontends since early 2000. So I have seen it all, from activex being shinny to jquery, mootools, backbonejs, angular 1.0, php, Java Spring, Go.

        Hypermedia is what to web apps what XML is to programming languages. We have tried HTMX as a concept many times over, there is nothing new here, and like everything declarative, sooner or later it will fall short and you're going to reach for escape hatches and what not.

        And the features specified in that project is nice to have, in the same way that it is nice that we have Date Pickers or other advanced input features, but it is never going to replace React-like frameworks.

        Again, the reason we have finally stabilised on JSX is because you can't really "Declare" away HTML or sophisticated data and event management, Google really really tried that with Angular 1.0, and we know it doesn't scale.