[nish1500]

This is the cycle of JavaScript frameworks. You create something deceivingly simple that tramples upon idiomatic usage but looks great for a todo app. Beginners realize the hard way that this doesn't scale because deep reactivity shouldn't be a default, they no longer know what a vanilla JS variable should behave like, and code is un-readable.

Let the bundler minify your JavaScript. Less characters !== simple.

[tipiirai]

I prefer thinking scalability more literally (like Chris Coyier): an approach that works for a small site and remain the same approach for a large site. Nue's approach is MVC, which is a project not released yet. Check: https://nuejs.org/tools/

Less characters in source code is obviously a better metric for simplicity than what there are on the minified code (Nue wins on both btw)

[meiraleal]

I appreciate your effort on creating a full ecosystem from the ground up. I'm doing the same, the more the better. It brings me an old time hackers vibe. We don't need 10s of VC-backed frameworks trying to lockdown users to cash them. I hope you plan to continue doing this work by yourself in place of launching a PaaS/SaaS on top of it.

[moffkalast]

The best kind of JS framework is no framework, especially for small teams.

Especially now that self encapsulating modules are a thing and server side templating can fill in html's lack of import tags. Reusable components sound great in principle, but trying to replace one that's used in 30 different locations with small nuances in each spot leads to complete debugging hell, just like typical overzealous polymorphism.

Allegedly we're even getting optional typing soon, so TS will become obsolete as well.

[johnny22]

> Allegedly we're even getting optional typing soon, so TS will become obsolete as well.

I'll be surprised if tc39 allows it.

[tipiirai]

> encapsulating modules

I love vanilla JS. Are you referring to web components?