←back to thread

Lit: a library for building fast, lightweight web components

(lit.dev)
277 points merqurio | 2 comments | 03 Sep 25 06:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.528s | source
Show context
Muromec ◴[03 Sep 25 09:59 UTC] No.45113989[source]▶
I had lit in a project at work and not having to deal with it anymore is just great. We already have another heavier component framework to do the actual application stuff anyway, so having two just because somebody wanted to optimize their resume was such a drag.

It all looked nice in theory, but one thing shadow DOM makes worse is A11y, because element ids are now scoped and all the missing describe-by, label-for for things that should link to other side of the fence are a massive pain in the ass.

Big part of it is just skill issue on our part of course.

replies(4): >>45114885 #>>45117839 #>>45127177 #>>45149778 #
kubb ◴[03 Sep 25 12:23 UTC] No.45114885[source]▶
Shadow DOM is optional in Lit - you can just disable it on a per-component basis.
replies(2): >>45116012 #>>45116762 #
jazzypants ◴[03 Sep 25 15:12 UTC] No.45116762[source]▶
It should not be the default. This is almost certainly Lit's biggest flaw.

I am currently working on a web components framework, and I scrapped everything halfway through after I realized that you very rarely want that much encapsulation. Now, you can turn it on if you really need it, and I even made a way where you can pass references to DOM elements and stylesheets and such into each component so you can pierce the shadow veil easily. I have one demo to show it off, but I'm really having trouble imagining when someone would actually want to use it. The only time I can imagine it being useful would be building component libraries inside of large organizations.

I'm not ready to show off my framework yet, but I'm very certain that this leads to a better DX.

replies(2): >>45116920 #>>45117544 #
kubb ◴[03 Sep 25 15:27 UTC] No.45116920[source]▶
Good luck with your better framework, but if this is the biggest flaw… then there’s really not much to complain about.
replies(1): >>45117160 #
1. jazzypants ◴[03 Sep 25 15:47 UTC] No.45117160[source]▶
Thanks! That's hardly the biggest difference to Lit. I think Lit is a fantastic framework, and I'm not trying to replace it or anything. However, it's really unopinionated which is fantastic for flexibility, but it leads to every deployment looking and feeling very different.

Basically, I'm just curious what a full-stack web component framework with strong defaults could look like. This is primarily a learning exercise, and a way to experiment with integrating web components into modern framework concepts like streaming server components, resumability, automatic serialization, and type-safe RPCs. I don't know if it will ever be production-ready, but I've learned a lot and it's been a ton of fun.

replies(1): >>45118723 #
2. __oh_es ◴[03 Sep 25 18:02 UTC] No.45118723[source]▶
Have you seen https://brisa.build/? Its not web-components first but it looks really well designed and may give you some inspo