Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | asurty's commentslogin

IMO they are complimentary to react.

Frameworks like react/angular/backbone/vue solve the problem of creating a single page application with a nice architecture and sharing code between components within the SPA.

Web components solve the problem of sharing code between any application.

There are opportunities to share code (eg/ data binding) and I believe that is the case (they use the same underlying browser APIs where available)


With exception of React, all those frameworks have options to generate WebComponents for their component model.


That is cool, didn't realize that! I wonder why React lags behind ( ? )


I think it is a culture issue, as far as I understand the underlying issue, the React community is not so impressed with having to deal with Web Components.


Realistically, there's almost no community that is impressed with having to deal with Web Components.

In this discussion I keep reiterating: there are multiple reasons why none of the major frameworks and very few of the new frameworks have WCs as their foundation. At best they can consume/embed them and perhaps compile to them. And even that is rife with problems.


If we ignore the fact that everyone else supports them, regardless if they are their foundation or not.

https://custom-elements-everywhere.com/


> everyone else supports them

That's what I said: At best they can consume/embed them and perhaps compile to them.

> regardless if they are their foundation or not.

And the fact that they are not forming the foundation of these frameworks should be examined and fixed, not ignnored. However, wc proponents ignore this entirely.


Maybe because those frameworks don't want to be rewritten from scratch?

It is like asking why so many graphics engines get written, instead of using raw OpenGL/Vulkan calls and extension spaghetti all over the place.


> Maybe because those frameworks don't want to be rewritten from scratch?

The absolute vast majority of new frameworks don't use web components as the foundation.

Perhaps instead of burying their heads in the sand people pushing web components would should finally start asking why?


Usually I use https://angular.io/guide/elements, https://vuejs.org/guide/extras/web-components.html#using-cus... or https://lit.dev/

I only need to ask why, when I have to deal with React based stuff.


AngularJS doesn't use web components as their foundation.

VueJS doesn't use web components as their foundation.

So you're not asking why. You're ignoring the question and burying your head in the sand.


Yeah, because yelling against Web Components in every forum thread is so much more productive.

We use them with the frameworks that have first class support, regardless if they are at their foundation or not.

Who is actually being ignored here?


> Yeah, because yelling against Web Components in every forum thread is so much more productive.

I'm not yelling. I'm pointing out facts.

> regardless if they are at their foundation or not.

So why are they not used as a foundation? Why are they used at best as a second class citizen? Why is it these frameworks don't produce web components by default?

> Who is actually being ignored here?

Framework authors, who have been pointing out the very many deficiencies and shortcomings for years. Most developers who need things like scoped CSS and open-ui.org more than fifteen hundred new standards, each requiring JS to work, barely.


I only see React framework authors ignoring Web Components.

Angular and Vue framework authors considered them good enough to spend development resources on adding support for Web Components, they didn't do it for fun and glory.


> I only see React framework authors ignoring Web Components.

See how you ignore everything I write even though I wrote it in the very first reply: "there are multiple reasons why none of the major frameworks and very few of the new frameworks have WCs as their foundation. At best they can consume/embed them and perhaps compile to them."

All you keep saying is "oh they support web components only react doesn't support that's the only question why"

Full on denial and ignorance.

Angular's "support", for example, is slapping on a wrapper, and ignoring everything about web components entirely by loading the angular runtime and everything else Angular behind the wrapper. But sure. Support.


Goes hand in hand with you ignoring that except for React, everyone else supports Web Components in some form, so that you can keep bashing them.

We are done here, it is quite clear were we stand.


See how you're completely blind to what I'm writing.

My very first comment says this:

- There are multiple reasons why none of the major frameworks and very few of the new frameworks have WCs as their foundation.

This is a fact

- At best they can consume/embed them and perhaps compile to them.

This is also a fact

Somehow you saw me saying "React" in there. Which says a lot about you.

> We are done here, it is quite clear were we stand.

Oh yes, it's crystal clear.


Web components seem like a good idea to me. I would imagine there are a lot of libraries out there (eg/ calendars, styling frameworks) that would benefit from reuse across applications. The browser could cache it even if served from a different CDN.

I'm curious what the problems are with web components that you see? Is it specifically related to how they might be used (or useless) in the major frameworks?


> I'm curious what the problems are with web components that you see?

Bitesized explanation from Rich Harris, the author of Svelte: https://twitter.com/Rich_Harris/status/1198332398561353728 It's from 2019, but all the issues are still there. When/If they are going to be solved, it will be by increasingly complex standards that require more and more Javascript for them to just barely function (like they couldn't even participate in form events without additional Javascript).

See also a larger discussion by the author of Solid: https://youtu.be/BEWkLXU1Wlc?t=5837 (if the link doesn't open at the timestamp, skip to "Failed Promise of Web Components" at 1:37:17). It's a bit rambling because it was unrehearsed and on stream, but still good. He also shows and discusses other articles like Rich Harris' https://dev.to/richharris/why-i-don-t-use-web-components-2ci... and his own https://dev.to/ryansolid/maybe-web-components-are-not-the-fu... You can read them directly, but Ryan gives excellent additional context.


Thanks for taking the time to find/share these links! Very informative.

It sounds to me like most of the criticism's outlined are solvable. Perhaps the people behind the standard should be engaging the framework community more.

I wonder if you think web components (and the problem they set out to solve) is wrong from a fundamental/architectural standpoint?


A few years back I did something called 'master the mainframe' where they provided a TSO login for you on an instance running in one of their labs. They also provided you with a bunch of fun exercises to learn more about the system.

I think this is the equivalent - https://ibmzxplore.influitive.com/users/sign_in


"The IBM Z Xplore Learning Platform (formerly called Master the Mainframe) is a fun way to get hands-on experience across a variety of technologies, to develop valuable skills, and to earn digital badges – with no prior knowledge required!"

I've had this bookmarked for years, never gotten around to starting it, though. Web development continues to entertain, challenge, and sustain me.


I love the idea of requiring the purchase of merchandise beforehand, although I'm not sure if this would only compound the problem of scalping. The problem with building moats is

a ) scalpers will write algorithms to predict where the moats are before fans can get there

b ) it discourages new fans getting into a band


I think ticket master attempted to do something similar to what you were saying as mentioned in this freakonimics podcast -

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-live-event-ticke...

I believe the problem they cited with this approach is it provides a poor UX where someone would have to keep checking the site to see if the ticket price has hit their desired target.

It would also still leave room for bots front running although still a better solution since the effects are dampened. Still, it's a lot easier for a bot to watch for a 'good price' to come up than a 'true fan'.

Perhaps to get around that there could also be an ability to make automatic purchases for a user once the ticket price reaches desired target? Something like a batch auction that randomizes winners in a cohort might work.

There are also people working in this area that would like to simply prevent resales. The problem there is it also might discourage purchases since people might be more reluctant to make such a big purchase if there is no way to recoup their money in case something happens that prevents them from going.

Perhaps another alternative to discourage scalping is if there was an identity system that requires each ticket holder to prove their identity. That, however, would also decrease the UX dramatically and would be a tough sell. But maybe the time is right to make such a hard sell?


TLDR: band gaps are not for the feint of heard :D


It's easy, you just grab each electron firmly using pliers and carefully move them closer together. Be sure you have a proper angstrom ruler to make sure they're the right distance.


"The answer's not in the box, it's in the band."


I think the core ethos of the book is every negotiation is different and so each tip/technique is just that - a tip/technique you can add to your tool belt and use when the context lends itself to it.

The book also mentions anchoring should usually be avoided in negotiations and instead it recommends you focus on the non monetary value points each party can exchange.

There is actually a section on negotiating salary and IIRC it recommends you provide a range where the bottom of the range is where you are hoping to land.

So you are correct - I would never say in a salary negotiation that I need an exact dollar amount as it might make me love petty unless I prefaced it with 'I have a family to feed and a roof to put over our heads'.


I have also been loving yoga on youtube! Its like going to a class except there is nobody to tell me how much my form sucks.

I've been thinking about writing an app to let me turn some of these follow alongs into an interval timer where I could just say the name of the pose (so I could do other things while doing the yoga). Then I could always click on the pose to go back to the video. Does that sound of interest?


This is exactly why I decided against purchasing a cottage (thats what we call it up here in Canada).

I realized I would be spending at least 4 hours in traffic every weekend to double my house work.

Instead why not just put all that time in making my home in the city as habitable as possible?

Maybe some day but it would have to be a permanent and only residence.


Fun little side-note but Cabins are called cabins in Western (BC & Alberta for sure, and I believe Sask as well) Canada. It's only Eastern Canada that calls them cottages.


They're commonly called camps in Northern Ontario.


That was fun! Somehow I feel like I came up with a tune that already exists - https://music-grid.surge.sh/#256-80-256-40-256-32-256-288-12...



And I have added to the both of yours! It needed some B A S S.

https://music-grid.surge.sh/#2320-2128-2304-2088-1280-1056-1...


Is this what collaborative open source music creation looks like?


Getting some fantasy worldmap vibes


I've been using it more to read Dalio's articles. Which makes me curious why he is using linked in and not just hire someone to set up a personal blog for him ( ? )


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: