22 replies

1. Zach Leatherman 5 min later

   with a casual side-eye at TypeScript 👀

   1. Private reply 6 min later
      1. Private reply 8 min later
         1. Private reply 11 min later
            1. Private reply 12 min later
               1. Private reply 36 min later
                  1. Private reply 44 min later
                     1. Private reply 48 min later
                        1. Private reply 49 min later
2. Khalid ⚡ 14 min later

   @zachleat <Over>
   <My dead=“body” className=“wtf” />
   </Over>

   1. Khalid ⚡ 15 min later

      @zachleat Just kidding, burn it all to the ground. The Web always wins. ALWAYS.

      1. Zach Leatherman 30 min later

         @khalidabuhakmeh the `className` burns already—so deep

3. Tim Severien 1 hr later

   @zachleat It doesn’t needs to be if it isn’t running in the browser. The issue is everyone bundling node(!) modules into codebases with browser as a target. It’s not as if we’re targeting different architectures that are functionally virtually identical.

   1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

      @timsev but we *needed* isomorphic JavaScript for single page applications, right? 🫣

      …right?

      1. Tim Severien 1 hr later

         @zachleat In the early days, SPA’s were exclusively client-side and could’ve worked fine with a browser-specific package manager (like bower). I think it was node.js folk that pursued isomorphism, and devs that built JS-heavy sites followed naturally.

4. easrng 1 hr later

   @zachleat But unlike CommonJS ~nobody ships JSX or TypeScript files on NPM directly.

   1. Zach Leatherman 1 hr later

      @easrng I agree with the premise of the article! My point is that we should apply that premise to JSX too.

      1. easrng 1 hr later

         @zachleat right, my point is that JSX is completely optional since your dependencies won't use it and you can avoid using it by either calling your framework's h yourself or using something like htm

         1. Zach Leatherman 2 hr later

            @easrng if JSX had been architected to use tagged template literals (a la htm), I would have no complaints—but alas, it was not. What I’m hearing is that you’re fine with transpilers for JSX—I wish they weren’t necessary.

            1. easrng 2 hr later

               @zachleat no i'm saying jsx is completely optional. there is ~no scenario in which you are required to use jsx, since it's just syntax sugar for h calls.

               1. Zach Leatherman 2 hr later

                  @easrng ehhh, I see what you mean—but saying that you don’t need to use JSX because someone else already ran the transpiler isn’t quite a strong enough argument for me to board that train of thought.

                  we needn’t belabor it further though, thanks for the chat!

5. ｔｏ⟁ｓｔ⟁ｌ 2 days later

   @zachleat we don't need JSX, functions were always simpler and didn't require a compile step.