←back to thread

218 points mdhb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.44392596[source]
Hard not to laugh out loud at "We know what good syntax for templating looks like." We don't. Not even close. Because I'd hazard a good template is almost certainly more of a visual thing than it is a symbolic one. Is why dreamweaver and such was so successful back in the day. And why so many designers learn with tools like photoshop.

Also hard not to feel like this is reaching hard to try and recreate xslt. :( It is inevitable that someone will want to template something that isn't well formed, but can combine into a well formed thing. And then you are stuck trying to find how to do it. (Or correlated entities on a page that are linked, but not on the same tree, as it were. Think "label" and "for" as an easy example in plain markup.)

If I could wave my magic wand, what we need is fewer attempts to make templates all fit in with the rube goldberg that is the standard document layout for markup. People will go through obscene lengths to recreate what judicious use of absolute positioning can achieve fairly well. Sure, you might have to do math to get things to fit, but why do we feel that is something that we have to force the machine to do again and again and again on the same data?

replies(9): >>44392668 #>>44394054 #>>44394866 #>>44395165 #>>44395166 #>>44396349 #>>44396377 #>>44396559 #>>44400705 #
1. tshaddox ◴[] No.44400705[source]
I'd also argue that there are only superficial similarities between, say, React and Svelte. Yes, they both have a syntax based heavily on HTML, but they work very differently. React is the only major framework that works by having (mostly) normal JavaScript functions return lazy representations of markup (in the form of JSX). React has no template-level notion of looping or conditional rendering, because you use normal JavaScript for that.