A standards-first web framework

It is interesting, but I really dislike the way it tries to bash every other tech in the blog post, on the homepage and in the docs itself. The tone is very confident, but it will put you open to a lot of scrutiny.

Instead it could really use a lot more explanation on how it works. If you make comparisons make sure they are fair. The image "JavaScript mixed together" and "Strict separation of concerns" is just comparing apples with oranges. Multiple times in the docs it compares a huge complicated JSX like component and replaces it with 3 lines of html and 3 lines of css. I don't believe that it does the same thing.

Some of the claims are strange. It praises standard HTML but apparently you have to use some custom Markdown syntax to write it. How does that add up? And on top of that it also introduces new syntax for loops and variables.

This could all work perfectly fine. But my suggestion would be to talk more about how it works and what are the advantages and less trying to bring down competitors. It could use less grand claims and focus more on what it really does.

> "JavaScript mixed together" and "Strict separation of concerns" is just comparing apples with oranges

I feel this this comparison reveals how deeply framework thinking has shaped our understanding of web development and how thoroughly we've accepted JavaScript monoliths as normal.

Why have we normalized a world where marketing pages need a JavaScript monolith with mixed content? Why do we consider utility classes more "maintainable" than systematic design? Why must every solution flow through JavaScript when browsers provide these capabilities natively?

I have tremendous troubles explaining these things to engineers, who constantly turn the discussion into technical, low-level details instead of looking at the bigger picture. Any suggestions how I should approach this? Thanks in advance!