←back to thread

367 points lemonberry | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.24641703[source]
I love her description of using a dependency-laden component:

> Using a custom element from the directory often needs to be preceded by a ritual of npm flugelhorn, import clownshoes, build quux, all completely unapologetically because “here is my truckload of dependencies, yeah, what”. Many steps are even omitted, likely because they are “obvious”. Often, you wade through the maze only to find the component doesn’t work anymore, or is not fit for your purpose.

That is so true. The "unapologetically" thing is important. I see this all the time. There's often a fair bit of 'tude, where I am looked at with condescension, for not knowing something "obvious."

The fig tree pic is perfect.

EDIT: Removed phrase that was possibly corrosive to the narrative.

replies(7): >>24641798 #>>24641833 #>>24641876 #>>24642200 #>>24642654 #>>24644698 #>>24651062 #
dmix ◴[] No.24644698[source]
This is just the reality of the current JS world and just how it continues to get done for practical and profressional reasons.

The dream is having small self-contained web components and can just drop in to your site (the whole whole anti-JS stuff is a whole other beast and IMO unrelated to practical shortterm goals of getting web components at the browser.

What the components end up doing is still heavily dependent on a JS component building world that was built with a framework in mind and native web component integration as a future ideal implementation system. But otherwise there is no getting away from components being tied together in a wider system with heavy JS dependencies.

Basically nothing has failed. Other than maybe React and Vue et al turned out to be more practical for the above reasons and full native web components are an afterthought. They've been sufficiently simulated where it's not a big deal.

replies(1): >>24648662 #
1. Dahoon ◴[] No.24648662[source]
)