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?
> Also hard not to feel like this is reaching hard to try and recreate xslt.
I was never a fan of XML, but XSLT was (is!) a killer redeeming feature of the ecosystem. And it's still widely supported in browsers! It was such a shame that XML caught on where it sucked--configuration, IPC, etc--but languished where it shined, as a markup language with an amazing transformation capability in XSLT.
I think where XSLT fell over was that it's a real DSL, and a declarative, pure, functional DSL at that. People like to talk a big game about DSLs, but inevitably they're simplistic syntactic exercises that don't actually abstract the underlying procedural semantics of popular host languages. When faced with a well-designed DSL that makes difficult tasks trivial... people can't be bothered to learn.
I’m a big fan of XHTML (strictness is good) and feel like XSLT could be a great addition, but I hate the syntax. I’d love to build a Jinja to XSLT compiler one day.
XSLT's weaknesses are the extension of its strengths. It's the first homoiconic, purely functional language that enjoyed widespread adoption among "normal" developers, not type theory wonks.
But XML's syntax sucks, and so inevitably does XSLT's, because XSLT is just XML. Were it s-expressions, the syntax could suck slightly less. It was (is!) a small price to generate XSLT using XSLT, which makes XSLT very powerful and expressive if you hold it right, almost like a Lisp. This saved me a few times around year 2000 or so.
I barely used xslt, but as a fp head I wanted to try, the most confusing part to me were terminology / semantics / decoupling. Seemed like matching templates could be anywhere making difficult to understand the meaning of a script.
The node pattern matching was ok, but as far as i can recall, there could be multiple matching patterns scattered in lots of places (a 180deg turn compared to most FP pattern matching that aim for exhaustiveness ?)
I wouldn't say it had widespread adoption. We used XSLT in my day job at the time to do client-side updates, even had a special SQL API that turned sql queries into XML automatically by naming the columns with a special syntax and it was virtually unheard of (2007?).
It was actually great when you got it, but the learning curve was so steep many developers couldn't use it effectively to begin with. For complex pages only certain developers could make changes or fix the bugs. Precisely because it was functional and most developers at the time really only understood imperative.
In fact, I remember the DailyWTF had a WTF about using XSLT as client-side transforms a few years later:
But doing something like that was in fact so much faster than doing it in js, and when you groked it (deliberate throwback), it was so much simpler. I actually wrote a pivot table control in XSLT which completely blew away the performance of the pre-v8 javascript one. Pre-V8 javascript was so slow most developers wouldn't believe you now. A 10,000 iteration loop of even basic operations was often enough to cause IE6 to show a pop-up saying the page wasn't responding.
The pivot table in javascript would crash with just a few hundred lines of data, in XSLT it was instant with even 10,000s.
A really interesting use of XSLT on the web at the time was the WoW character viewer. You could view (and share) your character on Blizzard's website, with all their gear, skills, etc. It was blazingly fast for the time and it was all written in XSLT.
> but languished where it shined, as a markup language with an amazing transformation capability in XSLT
I choose to look at this a little differently.
An XML application using XSLT is so much better (faster load times, faster to write, easier to make correct) than a JavaScript application with a JSON api, that XML is basically a secret weapon.
I only care enough that it stays in browsers, but otherwise I'd prefer nobody know about it because it means less competition on things that matter (faster load times, faster to write, fewer bugs, etc). And I've got a half-baked JavaScript-based "renderer" I can finish in case some Google VP asshat goes looking for things to delete...
> 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.
How do you come to this conclusion? It seems to me that what you mean is a general gripe with HTML+CSS, not with how it's generated.
And why do you bring up absolute positioning?
I hear this take on HN again and again and sure, absolute positioning has its place, and is needed for many things.
But when it's used for page/app layout, most of the time I came across this it was an absolute nightmare, falling apart at the slightest content (even text!) or screen size changes.
Even print newspaper layout can't work like this, because typography is involved, although it's probably a lot closer to what I imagine you are describing.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
But when I was doing more CSS-intensive work (I still do a fair bit), developing something on a basis when someone created a layout based on absolute positioning that looked like it was "almost ready", it was a terrible time sink to try to fix it and recreating it using flex, flow et al for layout (I'm not that fond of grid outside of some scenarios, and at the time I didn't use it due to browser support) was always faster because the problems with absolute positioning as the main layout tool were basically unfixable.
Maybe there are techniques using calc() and viewport units where it makes sense, but absolute positioning is not suitable for any layout outside of completely static content and viewport dimensions, in my experience.
> People will go through obscene lengths to recreate what judicious use of absolute positioning can achieve fairly well
the web has the requirement that the 'document' look good no matter what device size/dimension, orientation, and/or capability.
In regular apps (say, a windows app), you don't have this requirement. In mobile apps, there's a standardized set of sizes. Only on web do we have both!
We don't know what good syntax for templating looks like because HTML is complex enough and many have tried making it more complex with things like Blade for PHP or HTMX for example.
For some reason I've always preferred JS to HTML. React components with JSX is a good balance. Not everyone agrees but that's OK.
> Hard not to laugh out loud at "We know what good syntax for templating looks like." We don't.
The article fails to accept that performance and security aren’t addressed by vanity layers. This is a mistake repeated by web technologies when popular demand eventually crushes common sense, because hiring is more important than training/maintenance when the lowest levels of the work force can’t tell the difference and drives all design decisions.
If you want better performance or security you have to measure things, not wear a pretty dress and look the other way.
A basic lesson we've learned over and over is that API/ABIs aren't final. Application needs are never permanently fulfilled by a stable API, with all future problems considered to be app-level issues.
This proposal is a good example of how common issues with the platform are solved on top (React etc.) until we recognize them as a problem and then push them down. Polyfills are another example.
If a proposal like this succeeds, it lives a time in the sun, but then spends most of its useful life being the old thing that people are trying to work around, just like the DOM API, just like ECMA versions, just like old browsers, just like every other useful bit of tech that is part of the system but can't be touched.
Is it possible to think about entropy, extension and backcompat as primary use cases?
It's also the case that every feature in web standards means extra code that needs to be painstakingly maintained, and extra code that anyone trying to create a standards-compliant browser must implement. I want to see projects like https://servo.org/ actually have a chance to catch up over time, not always be chasing an expanding scope.
I want the web platform to have every possible capability that native platforms have (subject to privacy and sandboxing constraints, of course). And I want the developer experience of web developers to be incredible.
But these need to be balanced against the consequences of added complexity. And in this case, does native templating really improve developer experience? I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the costs.
> A basic lesson we've learned over and over is that API/ABIs aren't final
I dunno --- getElementById has been stable for, what, 25 years? "There's no such thing as a stable API" is something said by people unable or unwilling to create interfaces that last. It's a statement of personal resignation, not cosmic impossibility. There are tons of counterexamples.
Application needs, like other needs, are infinite. You satisfy these needs by adding new APIs, not breaking working ones.
I think you'll find that even the most unstable APIs have extremely stable parts to them.
At the same time I don't think there is actually anything that most people would consider an API that is open to public usage that has maintained that kind of stability that getElementById has, which after all is something most people would describe as a method of an API.
> If the Records and Tuples proposal were progressing, JSX could maybe create Records with boxes, but that proposal has been stalled, especially on the record identity and box parts that would make it suitable for a JSX semantics.
> There are in-flight proposals for very low-level DOM update primitives, like DOM Parts, which target framework implementations, but I think higher-level APIs like full declarative templating can take even more load off, help prove out and complete the lower-level API proposals, and be really impactful for developers and users.
If you valued your sanity when developing complex Web UIs, React was a lifesaver.
DOM sucks though, it's slow, it's heavyweight, it lacks transactions. We're stuck with it, and frameworks like React have to do the DOM diffing + patching thing, explicitly, in JS.
Instead of adopting JSX, I would really like the syntax for this to be more like the way Kotlin uses receivers and builders to provide a generalized syntax for DSLs that happens to be good for describing component hierarchies. It would be broadly useful far beyond just HTML templating, it would also be great for expressing configurations and all kinds of other things.
The actual semantics for templating and data binding could just be a set of standard functions that use those syntactic feature, much like what you see in Jetpack Compose.
It’s worth noting this was written by maybe the person with the most experience in the space i can think of—-the primary author of Lit / Polymer working at web components on Google and contributing on many core DOM specs that have become part of the web platform.
by one of the people wrecklessly barging forward with half-baked specs that introduced significantly more problems than they solved, pushed a "solution" that requires 20+ new web specs to barely do all the things user-space is already doing while completely ignoring and gaslighting anyone who wasn't 100% on board with what they were doing.
Safari argued that there should be a declarative ways for this 15 years ago
It's "recklessly". "reck" is a very old word meaning "to care, heed, have a mind, be concerned about"; so "reckless" means "without taking heed".
I actually thought it was directly related to "reckon" (meaning "to think or calculate"), but when I looked it up it turned out not to be the case (except much further back in the etymological tree).
Web components were such a big disappointment. 200% the complexity for 20% of the functionality. Everything coming out of that area seems to be hideously over-engineered while failing to solve the problems people wanted them to.
My feeling is that they were focused on designing something that is aimed at building form controls, not the kinds of components web developers use in practice. They are designed to make browser vendors’ lives easier, not web developers. That’s often excused with “web components excel at ‘leaf‘ components” when what is actually meant is “web components are bad at everything else”.
I would expect an actually good solution that fits in with the web’s architecture to come from the direction of HTMX, not web components.
> Safari argued that there should be a declarative ways for this 15 years ago
True, but they were equally able to propose and deploy alternative solutions and mostly just went along with web components (with exceptions of course).
> True, but they were equally able to propose and deploy alternative solutions and mostly just went along with web components (with exceptions of course).
Safari doesn't have as many engineers (a shame) and definitely doesn't have as many people whose apparent job is just to sit on standards committees and generate specs (like Alex Russel, Justin Fangnani etc.).
That looks interesting – certainly a lot simpler and closer to web developers’ needs than what ended up getting standardised.
It really is a shame Apple don’t invest more in WebKit and the web standards process. Although they’ve been doing a lot better over the past few years.
This is exactly the kind of high-level feature we need to stop putting standardisation efforts towards, and focus instead on low-level features that provide value for high-level user land abstractions.
There is no value this provides over making a tagged template function and exposing it as a library. If that library is stable with ubiquitous adoption for 5-10 years then maybe there's something to talk about.
People want this because JSX is all they are capable of.
One reason why things like this have never happened before is because the people who need this are only barely capable of working with HTML. The DOM supports a wide variety of technologies far outside and unrelated to HTML.
There is still innovation happening in frameworks. I do wonder if it is too early to start adding things like this to the browser. Web components landed way too early and now we’re stuck with them.
God I love lithtml’s tagged template literals so much more than react’s JSX or Vue’s 3-in-one thing. It’s just html, in strings, in JavaScript. Lit is just a way to make custom elements easier. Man it’s gonna suck when I have to move on from my current gig and get my hands dirty with react again.
no point pushing declarative sugar again into a system that's already kinda moved on. native templating not fixing real pain = state sync, fine grained reactivity, perf edge cases. we might need a browser level primitives that let lib authors build better abstractions without the payload tax. we maynot need another xsl reboot
What exactly is the problem with having the higher levels of web development supported through libraries (React, Vue etc) rather than directly in the browser? Why does this need to happen?
> Developers need to reach for a library, and thus tools like npm or a CDN, to do many basic things. This adds to the overhead of getting started. It makes simple static files and devtools less useful than they could be. There's no fundamental templating knowledge that's portable between stacks, and native DOM creation APIs like innerHTML are unsafe by default.
Remember when you could just drag an html file into your browser, and it would work? No build step, no package install, no web server, just vanilla html+css+javascript?
It would be nice to get to do that again, and the more we move things like .querySelector out of libraries like jQuery and into native browser APIs the better, imo.
That should ideally be the highest calling of frameworks like Lit and packages like Lodash - to be so good that they prove indispensable, and ultimately go native.
Chrome implemented a prototype, then the spec changed and they removed it, then they implemented the new version. I should have been clearer and said Chrome Canary and Firefox Nightly. Not sure when it will reach stable but probably some point this year, they’ve been working on it for ages and Safari is onboard.
Is there anyone else who feels kinda like declarative templating is actually kind of worse than jQuery? Don't get me wrong, I've been using React for nearly a decade. But the more complex my SPAs become, the more I wish I had imperative control of the DOM.
I think the reason is because the DOM is a leaky abstraction and at some level I would just prefer last write wins.
I realize declarative templating is supposed to handle that, but this starts to break down really quickly when you share mutable state between components.
I think part of this is React folks think its a cardinal sin to invoke the dom apis directly. Sometimes it's just fine to capture a ref (and dare I say, query a component by a id) and do the work directly. In fact this is what most libraries that are "fast" and low-rerenders do (like the form ones).
I would argue that the proliferation of frontend frameworks is evidence is that we -don't- know what the optimal abstraction is for building frontend applications. We're all still trying to figure that out.
Just look at what happened with Web Components. It didn't take over or become the foundation of everyone's software. It just became yet another competitor [0].
I wish the standards committees would focus their efforts on improving JavaScript the language. That has a much greater and more lasting return on investment.
I would love to see Web platform become more similar to JVM or .NET CLR - just a bytecode JIT with access to rich layout/rendering engine. Then build whatever you want on top of it.
> React doesn't provide a way to explicitly bind to properties and events of DOM elements, or provide directives that apply to an element.
I didn't understand this part, can anyone shed light? What is different between what's being described here and what React does with event listeners, etc?
I think this is referring to the fact that React uses synthetic event listeners - it's cheaper to bind an event listener once at the root and do your own element matching than it is to continuously bind and unbind listeners.
> React doesn't provide a way to explicitly bind to properties and events of DOM elements
We can nitpick this point because react has had a ref API for at least 5 years now. Given a ref, all DOM API are available. For events, SyntheticEvent will refer to a native event if it exists.
The SyntheticEvent abstracts vendor discrepancy. Under the hood, react can apply some optimization too.
The synthetic event also adds its own abstractions though. For example, the `onChange` handler in React behaves very differently to the native DOM `change` event.
Seems like a comment comes up about XUL every few years and I can't help but be sniped by it. A xulrunner app was my first job out of college in '08, good memories, fun dev environment!
My company, me as a solo dev, back in 2003-04 built a "single page app" using XUL and iframes.
Still has some 200 monthly users, the poor bastards. They have to download Firefox 3.6 iirc, and it only works in an 800x600 window.
It's a full management app for recruiting companies.
There are still 3 companies that use it (since 2008), so their employees don't have a choice really. The app does a lot, so to stop using it the companies would need to hire and migrate to 3-4 other services. I reckon SAP and the kind could do everything as well, but these companies are too small for that.
There isn't a website or anything anymore for me to show, and I haven't been involved in it for over 10 years.
Depends where the platform boundary is for Web. As much as we hate JS fatigues and so many frameworks, choice is good. Maybe if the browser can make it easy for these frameworks to be performant and integrate more deeply (not part of the JS bundle but more like a deeper JS 'plugin' with bonus of sometimes having a cache hit from another site) we could just carry on using React et. al.
DOM templating is just like JavaScript classes. Classes in JavaScript were requested since the earliest of times and always rejected until ES6 (2014), because they are/were:
* always unnecessary
* always artificial
* only vanity
* only desired by insecure persons not familiar in the technology
* only qualified as bad idea but necessary because people were just going to do it anyways
So far the DOM has managed to escape this stupidity only because it is not a part of JavaScript. Java people ignorant of JavaScript desirous of features to make JavaScript feel more like Java has no bearing on the DOM, for example, because they are separate technologies managed by unrelated organizations.
None of the ergonomic reasoning mentioned in the article are qualified. Just because many people lack confidence in the technology and knowingly make poor design decisions doesn’t mean a familiar vanity layer will fix anything. Declarative comfort, for example, is not a resolution to performance and security problems just because other knowingly bad design decisions are worse. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Furthermore the DOM already has a slow unnecessary declarative abstraction layer insecure people cannot live without called querySelectors. In other words this proposal is to React as querySelectors are to jquery, and classes are to Java. These are/were trends and trends die over time. We really should move past vanity as an alternative to an absence of training.
one trouble is that systems that work at the DOM tree level are an order or two magnitudes slower than string-based templating systems. Hypothetically you could do some interesting things like hygenic macros and merge together arbitrary documents, rewriting the CSS classes and such. But by and large people find string-based templates to be good enough and don't way to pay the price for something more expensive.
Currently <slot>s only have automatic behavior when attaching a <template> to the Shadow DOM to a node with existing "Light" DOM children, which mostly only happens with Web Components (and for now Web Components require JS).
So it is not yet a full, generic templating solution.
Also, this article goes on at length about how the templating needs to be "reactive" and not just "builds a DOM tree", and <slot> doesn't do that yet at all, even in the automatic behavior scenarios, it's a one time "merge".
Kicking the can along the road of the complexity of "reactive" components is a large part of how we've got the (quite basic) <template> and <slot> tags that we got, and I think why the article is still currently impractical. There needs to be more agreement on what "reactive" means. The article mentions the signals proposal, and that's one possibility that a lot of frameworks are pushing for right now, but it's still a process before browsers agree to support something like that, and something like that is a dependency before agreeing on what a "reactive" template language can be/how it would work out of the box.
A native virtual DOM implementation would also drastically reduce memory overhead since browser engines could optimize diffing algorithms at the C++ level instead of requiring megabytes of JavaScript framework code to be downloaded, parsed and executed on every page load.
The linked proposal has many "features" that would be "needed" if you frame the problem in terms of a "template api", centered around "binding" variables, and what not.
Doesn't your proposal implicitly introduce the concept of a virtual DOM, which the browser does not have?
You'd need to spec out what that looks like. It adds one new API from the users perspective but much more from the browsers perspective.
Additionally the next generation of Frameworks do not use virtual DOM. Solid and svelte do not. Vue is moving away from it. Signals are directionally where they're all heading.
As mentioned, the DOM API is a stinker. Does this address that root issue?
I'd love to see something that builds on the work of hyperscript and HAST. They are great models of the DOM. It would be exciting if a template language were syntax sugar.
JSX is easy to reason about because its elements are 1:1 with a single, uniform function call. That feature means JSX is always optional. Sometimes it is even more verbose or less-performant to use JSX than a hyperscript API like specifying optional properties. I think errors and call stacks are clearer than during string interpolation, but that's possibly BS.
Web components offer limited data binding and the hyperscript approach has clear control flow. The templates seem to be a source of confusion in the GH discussions.
There is still something special and pleasant about jquery because its API was a reflection of the domain. As a developer, I want to query for a node (CSS selector, xpath, etc.) to affect change and traverse to other nodes. After a beer or two I'm convinced emacs and org mode approaches are worth emulating in the web.
Great article and linked discussions. Thanks for sharing.
The part about Signals is telling and illustrates well why the idea while laudable is practically unfeasible.
I get why OP likes signals. In every large enough project there is a half baked implementation of a DAG calc tree and it makes sense that a language could standardize one.
But these abstractions have a huge mental / implementation cost.
The problem, as with most engineering things is a tradeoff problem. The react model - where you just update the global state and re-render everything - is slower but easier on the brain. The signals model is faster, but so much effort.
Most apps out there don’t need to be crazy fast, and people will choose react because it’s just simpler.
But signals don’t really have anything to do with templating, do they? So why do we have to choose, could we have templating and signals as separate things?
Well OP thought about templating and realized you do need a way to tell the dom how to fit your templated node where it belongs and update it when things change.
And this is where these proposals fail. There needs to be a choice here. The API must pick a side (well technically it could allow for both, but ugh), and developers won’t ever agree which side it should go.
The big problem of UIs has always been how they update, not how they’re defined. Microsoft tried (and failed) at defining a ton of models, MVC, MVP, MVVM, and what not, all of them were painful AF. Then imgui come and say, well what if UIs didn’t have state at all. Ooh this is nice, but kind of hard on the cpu, so what do we do?
Well, perhaps one of the biggest reason for the success of web apps is in fact that the dom didn’t impose a way to bind data to its view. And so we may be doomed to framework hell.
> The react model - where you just update the global state and re-render everything - is slower but easier on the brain. The signals model is faster, but so much effort.
there are multiple frameworks now that do fine-grained diffing without relying on signals, proxies, or any other reactive primitives. they basically have the top-down react model but much faster and without the weird concepts like hooks and manual/wasteful dependency arrays.
it's just 8% slower than the fastest / ugliest / imperative / unmaintainable vanilla js you can eventually arrive at if all you care about is winning benchmarks.
Just want to add that even though ivi is using tagged templates, I am strongly against using tagged templates to describe UIs as a Web Standard.
One of the most useful features that could make a lot of incremental computation problems easier is "value types"[1], but unfortunately it seems that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The biggest constraint when developing an efficient UI framework with good DX is JavaScript. Also, it would be nice to have `Node.prototype.insertAfter()` :)
> The biggest constraint when developing an efficient UI framework with good DX is JavaScript.
for perf, s/JavaScript/DOM, i think.
good DX comes from ecosystem and amount of time invested in making good tooling. JSX would be a non-starter without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring, and webpack/babel to do the compilation.
tagged templates could reach at least the same level of DX as JSX if the community invested the resources to make that better. i'm not saying it's the right solution for a standard, but it would be way better than jsx, since tagged templates are already a standard.
> JSX would be a non-starter without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring, and webpack/babel to do the compilation.
and then you immediately go on to say this:
> tagged templates could reach at least the same level of DX as JSX if the community invested the resources to make that better.
So, tagged templates are also non-starters without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring.
> i'm not saying it's the right solution for a standard, but it would be way better than jsx, since tagged templates are already a standard.
They are strings. There's no magic in tagged templates that somehow make them immediately better for some custom non-standard syntax compared to JSX.
You can't just plop a string containing lit's custom non-standard syntax into an IDE (or a browser) and expect it to just work because "it's tagged templates are standard".
For the purpose of templating in the browser there's literally no difference between standardizing a custom syntax based with JSX or tagged templates.
If you built React into the web platform, what I'd expect is everyone would stop using it the moment a big new version of React came out, and it'd eventually get deprecated and removed.
There has been long running complaints about how many UI frameworks there are, and how often they change. It's settled down some, but I don't expect that situation to change for a long while.
I disagree on the general principle of adding APIs -- the platform suffers not from lack of APIs, when you really think about it, but from "another API to rule them all". It's frankly a similar fallacy that struck Microsoft where they were for a long time stuck having to support every API their seniors and interns ever invented -- none of which seem to be sufficient, apparently.
The solution to the "bro, just one more API, please" is to design a _transparent_ platform that is well able to "delegate" programming of new features (e.g. one implementing your favourite templating API) to third-parties in a manner that maintains their "first class citizen" status. WebAssembly was a move in that direction because it's a generic platform that in part supercedes and otherwise supplants the mess that JavaScript has to manage bridging the originally "kiddie script" application software domain, with the native functionality the browser may be encapsulating (also for performance).
Case in point: FFMpeg may be compiled to a WebAssembly module, which gives you arbitrary video/audio encoding/decoding -- pending correct design of bit-blitting so the decoded output can be efficiently transferred to the screen/speakers (which, for much of the reasons I am trying to outline, _is_ the bottleneck of the entire solution).
We need more of the same kind of thinking. Stop begging Web browser vendors / w3C / WHATWG for more features that are just lipstick on a pig -- sit down, think about what kind of feature(s) would allow the Web platform to finally escape the death spiral it's been in since its inception -- albeit one with a large enough radius it's meant to never actually resemble a spiral.
I don't know if I am making myself clear here, but in much simpler terms: why should there be another piece of code that caters to "most" (because you happen to be a FP/React zealot, for better or for worse) when these people can ostensibly write such templating system themselves, publish it on e.g. NPM and/or pull it and use it from there?
Yes, it's weird that Browsers were so fast to ship CSP rules to prevent XSS attacks by limiting the use of inline scripts but so slow to ship a templating mechanism which would largely solve the problem.
It's like creating regulations which require a specific solution before that solution exists.
Templates are great until they need to be dynamic. Then you're right back to the current situation where frameworks like React are just the better way.
In fact, you could call JSX a "Dynamic Templating System" and that's a reasonable summary of what it is (in addition to other things of course).
There might be some ways that React itself could, internally, notice the special cases and special times where it _could_ be slightly more performant from using a lower level of templating, as an optimization, but I'd certainly prefer that to be abstracted away and buried deep inside React, rather than ever having to think about it myself, at the JSX layer.
Someone can let me know if React is already leveraging this for browsers that support it, I didn't research that.
"If I could wave my magic wand..." at least 2 of 3 of the changes I'd made about the way frontend web is developed, would be about `<template>`s:
1. Making it possible to do something like <template src="..."> and being able to load them from an external source
2. Making them "dynamic"
3 (and the most controversial one) that all CSS, HTML and Javascript (if you don't hate it) could be written natively like QML - one syntax to rule them all.
As a web dev you probably already know but #1 is slightly similar to `Web Components` but you're right we cannot load a web component right in the HTML where we use it. It makes sense though because if you use an Element in multiple places it wouldn't make sense to have 'src' in multiple places, so ultimately some kind of 'loading' at the top of the page is needed, and that's how WebComponents work, but I still like how you think.
#3 is a tricky one syntactically because HTML needs to be used by mere mortals and JS is a programming language used by us gods, so unifying all three would br tricky, but again I agree with you that would be awesome. Maybe some flavor of LISP would be both "powerful like a language" and "easy like a document".
The system described in the article is very React-like, and could be used by future versions of React. In both, functions return a description of HTML to render, which can be applied either to create new HTML or to update previously rendered HTML.
I skimmed part of it, but unless I missed some huge caveat I think you’re backwards and GP is definitely right. The article mentions React, then sort of dismisses it later saying the other two strategies are better to implement instead of diffing.
I don’t see any reason a browser level “here’s new DOM you diff and apply it” couldn't exist and be a huge win for React and other libraries, with React so much more popular than every other framework combined, and that being a pretty low level API, it makes sense to start there.
Building the overly abstracted thing first is a mistake web API authors have made too many times (see web components).
I still have hope for Web Components to take off in the figure. I'm a React dev so I don't "need" them, but they may end up being some kind of capability that React can secretly, quietly embed into React core as some kind of optimization if that ever makes sense. Web Components is a great idea, but like I said it's just not quite as convenient as React, so it's currently somewhat irrelevant at least for me.
> its API was a reflection of the domain. As a developer, I want to query for a node (CSS selector, xpath, etc.) to affect change and traverse to other nodes
> So you are saying that Array.from(querySelectorAll) gets you there? What are you missing then?
Array.from adds friction. The need to wrap querySelector in null checks adds friction. The fact that they are not composable in any way, shape, or form, with any DOM methods (and that DOM methods are not composable) adds friction.
jQuery was the fore-runner of fluid interface design. Nothing in the DOM before, then, or since ever thought about it. Even the new APIs are all the same 90s Java-style method calls with awkward conversions and workarounds to do anything useful.
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?
> Also hard not to feel like this is reaching hard to try and recreate xslt.
I was never a fan of XML, but XSLT was (is!) a killer redeeming feature of the ecosystem. And it's still widely supported in browsers! It was such a shame that XML caught on where it sucked--configuration, IPC, etc--but languished where it shined, as a markup language with an amazing transformation capability in XSLT.
I think where XSLT fell over was that it's a real DSL, and a declarative, pure, functional DSL at that. People like to talk a big game about DSLs, but inevitably they're simplistic syntactic exercises that don't actually abstract the underlying procedural semantics of popular host languages. When faced with a well-designed DSL that makes difficult tasks trivial... people can't be bothered to learn.
I’m a big fan of XHTML (strictness is good) and feel like XSLT could be a great addition, but I hate the syntax. I’d love to build a Jinja to XSLT compiler one day.
I also have a simple playground for XSLT: https://xsltbin.ale.sh/
XSLT's weaknesses are the extension of its strengths. It's the first homoiconic, purely functional language that enjoyed widespread adoption among "normal" developers, not type theory wonks.
But XML's syntax sucks, and so inevitably does XSLT's, because XSLT is just XML. Were it s-expressions, the syntax could suck slightly less. It was (is!) a small price to generate XSLT using XSLT, which makes XSLT very powerful and expressive if you hold it right, almost like a Lisp. This saved me a few times around year 2000 or so.
Can you generate XSLT from s-expressions though? :thinking:
I barely used xslt, but as a fp head I wanted to try, the most confusing part to me were terminology / semantics / decoupling. Seemed like matching templates could be anywhere making difficult to understand the meaning of a script.
It's sort of similar to regular pattern-matching, but sadly not built for ergonomics :(
The node pattern matching was ok, but as far as i can recall, there could be multiple matching patterns scattered in lots of places (a 180deg turn compared to most FP pattern matching that aim for exhaustiveness ?)
I wouldn't say it had widespread adoption. We used XSLT in my day job at the time to do client-side updates, even had a special SQL API that turned sql queries into XML automatically by naming the columns with a special syntax and it was virtually unheard of (2007?).
It was actually great when you got it, but the learning curve was so steep many developers couldn't use it effectively to begin with. For complex pages only certain developers could make changes or fix the bugs. Precisely because it was functional and most developers at the time really only understood imperative.
In fact, I remember the DailyWTF had a WTF about using XSLT as client-side transforms a few years later:
https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Sketchy-Skecherscom
But doing something like that was in fact so much faster than doing it in js, and when you groked it (deliberate throwback), it was so much simpler. I actually wrote a pivot table control in XSLT which completely blew away the performance of the pre-v8 javascript one. Pre-V8 javascript was so slow most developers wouldn't believe you now. A 10,000 iteration loop of even basic operations was often enough to cause IE6 to show a pop-up saying the page wasn't responding.
The pivot table in javascript would crash with just a few hundred lines of data, in XSLT it was instant with even 10,000s.
A really interesting use of XSLT on the web at the time was the WoW character viewer. You could view (and share) your character on Blizzard's website, with all their gear, skills, etc. It was blazingly fast for the time and it was all written in XSLT.
It's been a long number of years, but XUL (Mozilla/Firefox's UI layer) combined with XSLT was an incredible stack to build entire applications.
I regularly work with APIs in shell that return XML and XSLT is a goddamn super power. I adore it.
> but languished where it shined, as a markup language with an amazing transformation capability in XSLT
I choose to look at this a little differently.
An XML application using XSLT is so much better (faster load times, faster to write, easier to make correct) than a JavaScript application with a JSON api, that XML is basically a secret weapon.
I only care enough that it stays in browsers, but otherwise I'd prefer nobody know about it because it means less competition on things that matter (faster load times, faster to write, fewer bugs, etc). And I've got a half-baked JavaScript-based "renderer" I can finish in case some Google VP asshat goes looking for things to delete...
XSLT is just not a good language. Every single attempt of making XML executables (and there were many) failed badly, always for this one good reason.
> 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.
How do you come to this conclusion? It seems to me that what you mean is a general gripe with HTML+CSS, not with how it's generated.
And why do you bring up absolute positioning?
I hear this take on HN again and again and sure, absolute positioning has its place, and is needed for many things.
But when it's used for page/app layout, most of the time I came across this it was an absolute nightmare, falling apart at the slightest content (even text!) or screen size changes.
Even print newspaper layout can't work like this, because typography is involved, although it's probably a lot closer to what I imagine you are describing.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
But when I was doing more CSS-intensive work (I still do a fair bit), developing something on a basis when someone created a layout based on absolute positioning that looked like it was "almost ready", it was a terrible time sink to try to fix it and recreating it using flex, flow et al for layout (I'm not that fond of grid outside of some scenarios, and at the time I didn't use it due to browser support) was always faster because the problems with absolute positioning as the main layout tool were basically unfixable.
Maybe there are techniques using calc() and viewport units where it makes sense, but absolute positioning is not suitable for any layout outside of completely static content and viewport dimensions, in my experience.
> People will go through obscene lengths to recreate what judicious use of absolute positioning can achieve fairly well
the web has the requirement that the 'document' look good no matter what device size/dimension, orientation, and/or capability.
In regular apps (say, a windows app), you don't have this requirement. In mobile apps, there's a standardized set of sizes. Only on web do we have both!
We don't know what good syntax for templating looks like because HTML is complex enough and many have tried making it more complex with things like Blade for PHP or HTMX for example. For some reason I've always preferred JS to HTML. React components with JSX is a good balance. Not everyone agrees but that's OK.
> Hard not to laugh out loud at "We know what good syntax for templating looks like." We don't.
The article fails to accept that performance and security aren’t addressed by vanity layers. This is a mistake repeated by web technologies when popular demand eventually crushes common sense, because hiring is more important than training/maintenance when the lowest levels of the work force can’t tell the difference and drives all design decisions.
If you want better performance or security you have to measure things, not wear a pretty dress and look the other way.
A basic lesson we've learned over and over is that API/ABIs aren't final. Application needs are never permanently fulfilled by a stable API, with all future problems considered to be app-level issues.
This proposal is a good example of how common issues with the platform are solved on top (React etc.) until we recognize them as a problem and then push them down. Polyfills are another example.
If a proposal like this succeeds, it lives a time in the sun, but then spends most of its useful life being the old thing that people are trying to work around, just like the DOM API, just like ECMA versions, just like old browsers, just like every other useful bit of tech that is part of the system but can't be touched.
Is it possible to think about entropy, extension and backcompat as primary use cases?
It's also the case that every feature in web standards means extra code that needs to be painstakingly maintained, and extra code that anyone trying to create a standards-compliant browser must implement. I want to see projects like https://servo.org/ actually have a chance to catch up over time, not always be chasing an expanding scope.
I want the web platform to have every possible capability that native platforms have (subject to privacy and sandboxing constraints, of course). And I want the developer experience of web developers to be incredible.
But these need to be balanced against the consequences of added complexity. And in this case, does native templating really improve developer experience? I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the costs.
> spends most of its useful life being the old thing that people are trying to work around
But in the process, the base functionality has been propped up another level.
Incremental updates aren't worthwhile just because of userland requirements that will always discover new gaps, use-cases and blindspots.
> A basic lesson we've learned over and over is that API/ABIs aren't final.
On the web they are. Once something is out in the open on the web, there will be people depending on this, in this exact form, forever.
That's why there are still APIs that end up in "smooshgate" because of decisions from 20 years ago: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate
> A basic lesson we've learned over and over is that API/ABIs aren't final
I dunno --- getElementById has been stable for, what, 25 years? "There's no such thing as a stable API" is something said by people unable or unwilling to create interfaces that last. It's a statement of personal resignation, not cosmic impossibility. There are tons of counterexamples.
Application needs, like other needs, are infinite. You satisfy these needs by adding new APIs, not breaking working ones.
I think you'll find that even the most unstable APIs have extremely stable parts to them.
At the same time I don't think there is actually anything that most people would consider an API that is open to public usage that has maintained that kind of stability that getElementById has, which after all is something most people would describe as a method of an API.
> If the Records and Tuples proposal were progressing, JSX could maybe create Records with boxes, but that proposal has been stalled, especially on the record identity and box parts that would make it suitable for a JSX semantics.
That proposal hasn’t just stalled, it’s been withdrawn. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/394
It has been replaced by https://github.com/tc39/proposal-composites
> There are in-flight proposals for very low-level DOM update primitives, like DOM Parts, which target framework implementations, but I think higher-level APIs like full declarative templating can take even more load off, help prove out and complete the lower-level API proposals, and be really impactful for developers and users.
There is an alternative suggestion to DOM parts which might be a better bet: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/736
The web really needs native templating, reactivity, and data binding.
I can't even begin to imagine how much CPU and bandwidth is wasted with billions of users downloading, parsing, and executing something like React.
That's alright now LLM and crypto make this waste seem minuscule
With the TC39 signals proposal, part of that is making progress.
Except React.....
if (when?) Signals become a standard, React will be in a tight corner if they decide to ignore them
Was react ever about progress?
If you valued your sanity when developing complex Web UIs, React was a lifesaver.
DOM sucks though, it's slow, it's heavyweight, it lacks transactions. We're stuck with it, and frameworks like React have to do the DOM diffing + patching thing, explicitly, in JS.
React was a solution to a ten years ago problem
You can downvote it but it doesn’t make it any less true
Alex Russell has written swathes of arguments about Reacts performance issues https://infrequently.org/2024/11/if-not-react-then-what/
The DOM has become much faster since React started over a decade ago, the VDOM really isn’t needed anymore even for app like experiences
React is about developer preference over user experience
React isn’t templating though.
[dead]
Instead of adopting JSX, I would really like the syntax for this to be more like the way Kotlin uses receivers and builders to provide a generalized syntax for DSLs that happens to be good for describing component hierarchies. It would be broadly useful far beyond just HTML templating, it would also be great for expressing configurations and all kinds of other things.
The actual semantics for templating and data binding could just be a set of standard functions that use those syntactic feature, much like what you see in Jetpack Compose.
You don't even need much: loops, conditionals on attributes, and conditionals on nodes.
In fact, we could have that cross-language.
It’s worth noting this was written by maybe the person with the most experience in the space i can think of—-the primary author of Lit / Polymer working at web components on Google and contributing on many core DOM specs that have become part of the web platform.
> It’s worth noting this was written by
by one of the people wrecklessly barging forward with half-baked specs that introduced significantly more problems than they solved, pushed a "solution" that requires 20+ new web specs to barely do all the things user-space is already doing while completely ignoring and gaslighting anyone who wasn't 100% on board with what they were doing.
Safari argued that there should be a declarative ways for this 15 years ago
> wrecklessly
<pedantic>
It's "recklessly". "reck" is a very old word meaning "to care, heed, have a mind, be concerned about"; so "reckless" means "without taking heed".
I actually thought it was directly related to "reckon" (meaning "to think or calculate"), but when I looked it up it turned out not to be the case (except much further back in the etymological tree).
</pedantic>
Web components were such a big disappointment. 200% the complexity for 20% of the functionality. Everything coming out of that area seems to be hideously over-engineered while failing to solve the problems people wanted them to.
My feeling is that they were focused on designing something that is aimed at building form controls, not the kinds of components web developers use in practice. They are designed to make browser vendors’ lives easier, not web developers. That’s often excused with “web components excel at ‘leaf‘ components” when what is actually meant is “web components are bad at everything else”.
I would expect an actually good solution that fits in with the web’s architecture to come from the direction of HTMX, not web components.
> Safari argued that there should be a declarative ways for this 15 years ago
True, but they were equally able to propose and deploy alternative solutions and mostly just went along with web components (with exceptions of course).
> True, but they were equally able to propose and deploy alternative solutions and mostly just went along with web components (with exceptions of course).
Safari doesn't have as many engineers (a shame) and definitely doesn't have as many people whose apparent job is just to sit on standards committees and generate specs (like Alex Russel, Justin Fangnani etc.).
They did end up proposing declarative template instantiation in 2017: https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposal... but that mostly went nowhere
That looks interesting – certainly a lot simpler and closer to web developers’ needs than what ended up getting standardised.
It really is a shame Apple don’t invest more in WebKit and the web standards process. Although they’ve been doing a lot better over the past few years.
This is exactly the kind of high-level feature we need to stop putting standardisation efforts towards, and focus instead on low-level features that provide value for high-level user land abstractions.
There is no value this provides over making a tagged template function and exposing it as a library. If that library is stable with ubiquitous adoption for 5-10 years then maybe there's something to talk about.
I don't quite understand. The DOM is/needs a functional API. Why bolt another DSL on top?
Now you have to find a way for javascript to interact with your template language.
While functions are sufficient. That doesn't look like orthogonal language design.
People want this because JSX is all they are capable of.
One reason why things like this have never happened before is because the people who need this are only barely capable of working with HTML. The DOM supports a wide variety of technologies far outside and unrelated to HTML.
> I don't quite understand. The DOM is/needs a functional API. Why bolt another DSL on top?
There are no parts of DOM APIs that are functional. It's all 90s-era Java OOP-style.
There is still innovation happening in frameworks. I do wonder if it is too early to start adding things like this to the browser. Web components landed way too early and now we’re stuck with them.
The author was a core contributor of Google's Lit project: https://github.com/lit/lit
Lit my beloved
God I love lithtml’s tagged template literals so much more than react’s JSX or Vue’s 3-in-one thing. It’s just html, in strings, in JavaScript. Lit is just a way to make custom elements easier. Man it’s gonna suck when I have to move on from my current gig and get my hands dirty with react again.
> It’s just html, in strings, in JavaScript.
It's not. It's a custom HTML-like syntax with lots of custom and weird rules.
no point pushing declarative sugar again into a system that's already kinda moved on. native templating not fixing real pain = state sync, fine grained reactivity, perf edge cases. we might need a browser level primitives that let lib authors build better abstractions without the payload tax. we maynot need another xsl reboot
What exactly is the problem with having the higher levels of web development supported through libraries (React, Vue etc) rather than directly in the browser? Why does this need to happen?
FTA, which I agree with:
> Developers need to reach for a library, and thus tools like npm or a CDN, to do many basic things. This adds to the overhead of getting started. It makes simple static files and devtools less useful than they could be. There's no fundamental templating knowledge that's portable between stacks, and native DOM creation APIs like innerHTML are unsafe by default.
Remember when you could just drag an html file into your browser, and it would work? No build step, no package install, no web server, just vanilla html+css+javascript?
It would be nice to get to do that again, and the more we move things like .querySelector out of libraries like jQuery and into native browser APIs the better, imo.
That should ideally be the highest calling of frameworks like Lit and packages like Lodash - to be so good that they prove indispensable, and ultimately go native.
> There's no fundamental templating knowledge that's portable between stacks, and native DOM creation APIs like innerHTML are unsafe by default.
setHTML() is already implemented in Chrome/Edge and Firefox so this point is a bit outdated - there is a safe alternative to innerHTML.
MDN and caniuse say otherwise. I think there might've been an older specification that got implemented, but it's been revised since
Chrome implemented a prototype, then the spec changed and they removed it, then they implemented the new version. I should have been clearer and said Chrome Canary and Firefox Nightly. Not sure when it will reach stable but probably some point this year, they’ve been working on it for ages and Safari is onboard.
Is there anyone else who feels kinda like declarative templating is actually kind of worse than jQuery? Don't get me wrong, I've been using React for nearly a decade. But the more complex my SPAs become, the more I wish I had imperative control of the DOM.
I think the reason is because the DOM is a leaky abstraction and at some level I would just prefer last write wins.
I realize declarative templating is supposed to handle that, but this starts to break down really quickly when you share mutable state between components.
I think part of this is React folks think its a cardinal sin to invoke the dom apis directly. Sometimes it's just fine to capture a ref (and dare I say, query a component by a id) and do the work directly. In fact this is what most libraries that are "fast" and low-rerenders do (like the form ones).
I would argue that the proliferation of frontend frameworks is evidence is that we -don't- know what the optimal abstraction is for building frontend applications. We're all still trying to figure that out.
Just look at what happened with Web Components. It didn't take over or become the foundation of everyone's software. It just became yet another competitor [0].
I wish the standards committees would focus their efforts on improving JavaScript the language. That has a much greater and more lasting return on investment.
[0]: https://xkcd.com/927/
I would love to see Web platform become more similar to JVM or .NET CLR - just a bytecode JIT with access to rich layout/rendering engine. Then build whatever you want on top of it.
DOM + CSS is a hugely rich layout / rendering engine. The problem is that it's heavyweight.
Is there really a proliferation? At this point it’s 90% React.
> React doesn't provide a way to explicitly bind to properties and events of DOM elements, or provide directives that apply to an element.
I didn't understand this part, can anyone shed light? What is different between what's being described here and what React does with event listeners, etc?
I think this is referring to the fact that React uses synthetic event listeners - it's cheaper to bind an event listener once at the root and do your own element matching than it is to continuously bind and unbind listeners.
https://react.dev/reference/react-dom/components/common#reac...
> React doesn't provide a way to explicitly bind to properties and events of DOM elements
We can nitpick this point because react has had a ref API for at least 5 years now. Given a ref, all DOM API are available. For events, SyntheticEvent will refer to a native event if it exists.
The SyntheticEvent abstracts vendor discrepancy. Under the hood, react can apply some optimization too.
https://legacy.reactjs.org/docs/events.html https://react.dev/reference/react-dom/components/common#reac...
The synthetic event also adds its own abstractions though. For example, the `onChange` handler in React behaves very differently to the native DOM `change` event.
And then some. Switching to react-native or other render targets can also be a doozy. Hopefully the references clarify all the features.
I miss mozilla's XUL language (and XBL!), those were awesome.
Seems like a comment comes up about XUL every few years and I can't help but be sniped by it. A xulrunner app was my first job out of college in '08, good memories, fun dev environment!
My company, me as a solo dev, back in 2003-04 built a "single page app" using XUL and iframes. Still has some 200 monthly users, the poor bastards. They have to download Firefox 3.6 iirc, and it only works in an 800x600 window.
XUL was beastly back then though.
> Still has some 200 monthly users, the poor bastards. They have to download Firefox 3.6 iirc, and it only works in an 800x600 window.
Out of curiosity, what does that app do to convince people to jump through such hoops? Would you mind sending a link to it?
It's a full management app for recruiting companies.
There are still 3 companies that use it (since 2008), so their employees don't have a choice really. The app does a lot, so to stop using it the companies would need to hire and migrate to 3-4 other services. I reckon SAP and the kind could do everything as well, but these companies are too small for that.
There isn't a website or anything anymore for me to show, and I haven't been involved in it for over 10 years.
Quite common, lots of old software that is custom written lives on, be it java apps, old vb stuff, etc
there-is-only-XUL
There is no data!
https://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.x...
Good old time.
Nit: The post keeps referring to "standard JSX" as though trying to will such a thing into existence.
Depends where the platform boundary is for Web. As much as we hate JS fatigues and so many frameworks, choice is good. Maybe if the browser can make it easy for these frameworks to be performant and integrate more deeply (not part of the JS bundle but more like a deeper JS 'plugin' with bonus of sometimes having a cache hit from another site) we could just carry on using React et. al.
DOM templating is just like JavaScript classes. Classes in JavaScript were requested since the earliest of times and always rejected until ES6 (2014), because they are/were:
* always unnecessary
* always artificial
* only vanity
* only desired by insecure persons not familiar in the technology
* only qualified as bad idea but necessary because people were just going to do it anyways
So far the DOM has managed to escape this stupidity only because it is not a part of JavaScript. Java people ignorant of JavaScript desirous of features to make JavaScript feel more like Java has no bearing on the DOM, for example, because they are separate technologies managed by unrelated organizations.
None of the ergonomic reasoning mentioned in the article are qualified. Just because many people lack confidence in the technology and knowingly make poor design decisions doesn’t mean a familiar vanity layer will fix anything. Declarative comfort, for example, is not a resolution to performance and security problems just because other knowingly bad design decisions are worse. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Furthermore the DOM already has a slow unnecessary declarative abstraction layer insecure people cannot live without called querySelectors. In other words this proposal is to React as querySelectors are to jquery, and classes are to Java. These are/were trends and trends die over time. We really should move past vanity as an alternative to an absence of training.
When are we done adding everything into the browser API?
Hopefully never.
Unless you loved IE6 of course, which was when Microsoft declared the web browser to be 'complete'.
What about
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...
?
The next two documents are part of a set that I made which did DOM-based templating on the back end in Java
https://ontology2.com/the-book/html5-the-official-document-l...
https://ontology2.com/the-book/source-code-transclusion-in-h...
one trouble is that systems that work at the DOM tree level are an order or two magnitudes slower than string-based templating systems. Hypothetically you could do some interesting things like hygenic macros and merge together arbitrary documents, rewriting the CSS classes and such. But by and large people find string-based templates to be good enough and don't way to pay the price for something more expensive.
Currently <slot>s only have automatic behavior when attaching a <template> to the Shadow DOM to a node with existing "Light" DOM children, which mostly only happens with Web Components (and for now Web Components require JS).
So it is not yet a full, generic templating solution.
Also, this article goes on at length about how the templating needs to be "reactive" and not just "builds a DOM tree", and <slot> doesn't do that yet at all, even in the automatic behavior scenarios, it's a one time "merge".
Kicking the can along the road of the complexity of "reactive" components is a large part of how we've got the (quite basic) <template> and <slot> tags that we got, and I think why the article is still currently impractical. There needs to be more agreement on what "reactive" means. The article mentions the signals proposal, and that's one possibility that a lot of frameworks are pushing for right now, but it's still a process before browsers agree to support something like that, and something like that is a dependency before agreeing on what a "reactive" template language can be/how it would work out of the box.
What we need is not templating. What we need is a native implementation of a virtual dom.
More specifically, a native implementation of the "patch" function:
Where `virtual_dom` is just a plain-data description of the DOM.Most of the "slowness" of the DOM come from its requirement to be a 90's era Java style object hierarchy.
Don't call it "templating". Just call it "virtual dom". Everyone knows what that means.
A native virtual DOM implementation would also drastically reduce memory overhead since browser engines could optimize diffing algorithms at the C++ level instead of requiring megabytes of JavaScript framework code to be downloaded, parsed and executed on every page load.
Virtual DOM is a useless abstraction, there are numerous libs that perform fine without it.
It's a useful abstraction: you just build the full DOM with every change, a bit like a game engine. It makes so many things simpler.
It's not a free abstraction though.
Other than quibbling over the word "template", how does that differ from what TFA is describing?
The linked proposal has many "features" that would be "needed" if you frame the problem in terms of a "template api", centered around "binding" variables, and what not.
https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/1069
My proposal only adds one native function with nothing else: no new data types, no new apis.
Doesn't your proposal implicitly introduce the concept of a virtual DOM, which the browser does not have?
You'd need to spec out what that looks like. It adds one new API from the users perspective but much more from the browsers perspective.
Additionally the next generation of Frameworks do not use virtual DOM. Solid and svelte do not. Vue is moving away from it. Signals are directionally where they're all heading.
As mentioned, the DOM API is a stinker. Does this address that root issue?
I'd love to see something that builds on the work of hyperscript and HAST. They are great models of the DOM. It would be exciting if a template language were syntax sugar.
JSX is easy to reason about because its elements are 1:1 with a single, uniform function call. That feature means JSX is always optional. Sometimes it is even more verbose or less-performant to use JSX than a hyperscript API like specifying optional properties. I think errors and call stacks are clearer than during string interpolation, but that's possibly BS.
Web components offer limited data binding and the hyperscript approach has clear control flow. The templates seem to be a source of confusion in the GH discussions.
There is still something special and pleasant about jquery because its API was a reflection of the domain. As a developer, I want to query for a node (CSS selector, xpath, etc.) to affect change and traverse to other nodes. After a beer or two I'm convinced emacs and org mode approaches are worth emulating in the web.
Great article and linked discussions. Thanks for sharing.
The part about Signals is telling and illustrates well why the idea while laudable is practically unfeasible.
I get why OP likes signals. In every large enough project there is a half baked implementation of a DAG calc tree and it makes sense that a language could standardize one.
But these abstractions have a huge mental / implementation cost.
The problem, as with most engineering things is a tradeoff problem. The react model - where you just update the global state and re-render everything - is slower but easier on the brain. The signals model is faster, but so much effort.
Most apps out there don’t need to be crazy fast, and people will choose react because it’s just simpler.
But signals don’t really have anything to do with templating, do they? So why do we have to choose, could we have templating and signals as separate things?
Well OP thought about templating and realized you do need a way to tell the dom how to fit your templated node where it belongs and update it when things change.
And this is where these proposals fail. There needs to be a choice here. The API must pick a side (well technically it could allow for both, but ugh), and developers won’t ever agree which side it should go.
The big problem of UIs has always been how they update, not how they’re defined. Microsoft tried (and failed) at defining a ton of models, MVC, MVP, MVVM, and what not, all of them were painful AF. Then imgui come and say, well what if UIs didn’t have state at all. Ooh this is nice, but kind of hard on the cpu, so what do we do?
Well, perhaps one of the biggest reason for the success of web apps is in fact that the dom didn’t impose a way to bind data to its view. And so we may be doomed to framework hell.
> The react model - where you just update the global state and re-render everything - is slower but easier on the brain. The signals model is faster, but so much effort.
there are multiple frameworks now that do fine-grained diffing without relying on signals, proxies, or any other reactive primitives. they basically have the top-down react model but much faster and without the weird concepts like hooks and manual/wasteful dependency arrays.
my favorite one is ivi-js: https://github.com/localvoid/ivi
it's just 8% slower than the fastest / ugliest / imperative / unmaintainable vanilla js you can eventually arrive at if all you care about is winning benchmarks.
https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/2025/table...
Just want to add that even though ivi is using tagged templates, I am strongly against using tagged templates to describe UIs as a Web Standard.
One of the most useful features that could make a lot of incremental computation problems easier is "value types"[1], but unfortunately it seems that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The biggest constraint when developing an efficient UI framework with good DX is JavaScript. Also, it would be nice to have `Node.prototype.insertAfter()` :)
1. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple
> The biggest constraint when developing an efficient UI framework with good DX is JavaScript.
for perf, s/JavaScript/DOM, i think.
good DX comes from ecosystem and amount of time invested in making good tooling. JSX would be a non-starter without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring, and webpack/babel to do the compilation.
tagged templates could reach at least the same level of DX as JSX if the community invested the resources to make that better. i'm not saying it's the right solution for a standard, but it would be way better than jsx, since tagged templates are already a standard.
> JSX would be a non-starter without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring, and webpack/babel to do the compilation.
and then you immediately go on to say this:
> tagged templates could reach at least the same level of DX as JSX if the community invested the resources to make that better.
So, tagged templates are also non-starters without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring.
> i'm not saying it's the right solution for a standard, but it would be way better than jsx, since tagged templates are already a standard.
They are strings. There's no magic in tagged templates that somehow make them immediately better for some custom non-standard syntax compared to JSX.
You can't just plop a string containing lit's custom non-standard syntax into an IDE (or a browser) and expect it to just work because "it's tagged templates are standard".
For the purpose of templating in the browser there's literally no difference between standardizing a custom syntax based with JSX or tagged templates.
> The react model - where you just update the global state and re-render everything - is slower but easier on the brain.
I would gladly take easier on our hardware, bandwidth and planet even if a bit harder on the developers' brains. (as a developer).
> Most apps out there don’t need to be crazy fast
I wish we recognized that we need apps to be lean.
> and people will choose react because it’s just simpler.
I think you are right, and I dislike React for this.
> Microsoft tried (and failed) at defining a ton of models, MVC, MVP, MVVM, and what not,
Microsoft used those at various times, but the only one it defined was MVVM.
MVC was Xerox PARC, MVP was Taligent.
If you built React into the web platform, what I'd expect is everyone would stop using it the moment a big new version of React came out, and it'd eventually get deprecated and removed.
There has been long running complaints about how many UI frameworks there are, and how often they change. It's settled down some, but I don't expect that situation to change for a long while.
I disagree on the general principle of adding APIs -- the platform suffers not from lack of APIs, when you really think about it, but from "another API to rule them all". It's frankly a similar fallacy that struck Microsoft where they were for a long time stuck having to support every API their seniors and interns ever invented -- none of which seem to be sufficient, apparently.
The solution to the "bro, just one more API, please" is to design a _transparent_ platform that is well able to "delegate" programming of new features (e.g. one implementing your favourite templating API) to third-parties in a manner that maintains their "first class citizen" status. WebAssembly was a move in that direction because it's a generic platform that in part supercedes and otherwise supplants the mess that JavaScript has to manage bridging the originally "kiddie script" application software domain, with the native functionality the browser may be encapsulating (also for performance).
Case in point: FFMpeg may be compiled to a WebAssembly module, which gives you arbitrary video/audio encoding/decoding -- pending correct design of bit-blitting so the decoded output can be efficiently transferred to the screen/speakers (which, for much of the reasons I am trying to outline, _is_ the bottleneck of the entire solution).
We need more of the same kind of thinking. Stop begging Web browser vendors / w3C / WHATWG for more features that are just lipstick on a pig -- sit down, think about what kind of feature(s) would allow the Web platform to finally escape the death spiral it's been in since its inception -- albeit one with a large enough radius it's meant to never actually resemble a spiral.
I don't know if I am making myself clear here, but in much simpler terms: why should there be another piece of code that caters to "most" (because you happen to be a FP/React zealot, for better or for worse) when these people can ostensibly write such templating system themselves, publish it on e.g. NPM and/or pull it and use it from there?
We'd need a good API for UI components to go with it
Yes, it's weird that Browsers were so fast to ship CSP rules to prevent XSS attacks by limiting the use of inline scripts but so slow to ship a templating mechanism which would largely solve the problem.
It's like creating regulations which require a specific solution before that solution exists.
Where's the code?
https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/1069
Need a DOM snapshot API too.
The time has been right for Yonkers -
Templates are great until they need to be dynamic. Then you're right back to the current situation where frameworks like React are just the better way.
In fact, you could call JSX a "Dynamic Templating System" and that's a reasonable summary of what it is (in addition to other things of course).
There might be some ways that React itself could, internally, notice the special cases and special times where it _could_ be slightly more performant from using a lower level of templating, as an optimization, but I'd certainly prefer that to be abstracted away and buried deep inside React, rather than ever having to think about it myself, at the JSX layer.
Someone can let me know if React is already leveraging this for browsers that support it, I didn't research that.
"If I could wave my magic wand..." at least 2 of 3 of the changes I'd made about the way frontend web is developed, would be about `<template>`s:
1. Making it possible to do something like <template src="..."> and being able to load them from an external source
2. Making them "dynamic"
3 (and the most controversial one) that all CSS, HTML and Javascript (if you don't hate it) could be written natively like QML - one syntax to rule them all.
As a web dev you probably already know but #1 is slightly similar to `Web Components` but you're right we cannot load a web component right in the HTML where we use it. It makes sense though because if you use an Element in multiple places it wouldn't make sense to have 'src' in multiple places, so ultimately some kind of 'loading' at the top of the page is needed, and that's how WebComponents work, but I still like how you think.
#3 is a tricky one syntactically because HTML needs to be used by mere mortals and JS is a programming language used by us gods, so unifying all three would br tricky, but again I agree with you that would be awesome. Maybe some flavor of LISP would be both "powerful like a language" and "easy like a document".
The system described in the article is very React-like, and could be used by future versions of React. In both, functions return a description of HTML to render, which can be applied either to create new HTML or to update previously rendered HTML.
I skimmed part of it, but unless I missed some huge caveat I think you’re backwards and GP is definitely right. The article mentions React, then sort of dismisses it later saying the other two strategies are better to implement instead of diffing.
I don’t see any reason a browser level “here’s new DOM you diff and apply it” couldn't exist and be a huge win for React and other libraries, with React so much more popular than every other framework combined, and that being a pretty low level API, it makes sense to start there.
Building the overly abstracted thing first is a mistake web API authors have made too many times (see web components).
I still have hope for Web Components to take off in the figure. I'm a React dev so I don't "need" them, but they may end up being some kind of capability that React can secretly, quietly embed into React core as some kind of optimization if that ever makes sense. Web Components is a great idea, but like I said it's just not quite as convenient as React, so it's currently somewhat irrelevant at least for me.
Fisrt include jQuery as a whole into the base standard. That would help a lot.
Out of FE for a whole but isn't that done to a great extent.
done, how?
I <3 jQuery but, no.
What no? Why can't we have nice things, like concise, easy to remember, not overly elaborate syntax?
jQuery is large and contains a lot of things. Which specific features do you think the DOM needs?
From bevr1337's comment, above:
> its API was a reflection of the domain. As a developer, I want to query for a node (CSS selector, xpath, etc.) to affect change and traverse to other nodes
That's what I miss about it.
Doesn't querySelector(All) provide this?
Not entirely. There's a reason people do Array.from(querySelectorAll) to do more than just `forEach`
So you are saying that Array.from(querySelectorAll) gets you there? What are you missing then?
Genuinely asking, I have no clue what's being alluded to without being clearly mentioned in this thread.
> So you are saying that Array.from(querySelectorAll) gets you there? What are you missing then?
Array.from adds friction. The need to wrap querySelector in null checks adds friction. The fact that they are not composable in any way, shape, or form, with any DOM methods (and that DOM methods are not composable) adds friction.
jQuery was the fore-runner of fluid interface design. Nothing in the DOM before, then, or since ever thought about it. Even the new APIs are all the same 90s Java-style method calls with awkward conversions and workarounds to do anything useful.
That's why sites like "You don't need jQuery" read like bad parody: https://youmightnotneedjquery.com
E.g. what happens when it's not just one element?
Or: why doesn't NodeList expose an array-like object, but provides an extremely anaemic interface that you always need to convert to array? [1] There's a reason most people avoid DOM APIs like the plague.---
[1] This is the entirety of methods exposed on NodeList https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/NodeList
Instance properties
- length
Instance methods
- entries() // returns an iterator
- forEach()
- item()
- keys()
- values()
What do you think is alrite in the current spec?
Stop adding more complexity to the browser and making it even more impossible to build a new browser from scratch.