[lofties]

I used custom elements extensively in 2014 when support was not as widespread. I think it's a beautiful, elegant solution and I'm still a little bit bitter that React became as big as it was. Now everything "has" to be a SPA because developers want to use React, whereas most users would actually be better served with good 'ol HTML with some custom elements where needed.

[toastal]

> Now everything "has" to be a SPA because developers want to use React

Have you followed anything in the last 5 years? Outside of bootcamp students, this has been on the decline for a while… in some cases overcorrecting for where a SPA might make more sense.

[teaearlgraycold]

I’ve been getting into SSR with JSX as a template engine using kita. You still get full typescript analysis and composability. It beats any other SSR web templating system I’ve used.

I agree the need for everything to be a react app by default has gotten out of control. But I think if you’re a startup with unknown future needs it’s hard to ignore the flexibility and power of something like react. If you know you’re just making a CRUD app and good old fashioned form POSTs will do then it’s beautiful to have that speed and the lightweight pages.

[skeptic_ai]

You do the crud app and then they want: just make this to edit inline. You do some Ajax api Call with a tiny js. Then you need more and more. Then you have a mess and you’d be better with react. I still can’t find a project id be better of without react. When I tried without it bite me very quickly.

[halfmatthalfcat]

SPAs are early 2010s homie. SSR has been dominant for the past 5 years.

[troupo]

> I think it's a beautiful, elegant solution

Very confused by statements like these.

They are extremely verbose.

They are too high level, preventing many low-level optimizations.

They are too low-level, preventing you from using/implementing them without going into the details of how they actually work.

They break many platform assumptions and conventions, creating no end of problems both for end users and implementers, and needing dozens of new specifications to fix glaring holes that exist only because web components exist. All of those specs? A heavy dousing of Javascript of course.

Even the people who push them heavily cannot agree on what they are good is and what the goal of them is

[WickyNilliams]

What makes custom elements good is inrerop. I can use them in react, Vue, angular, svelte, solid, or just plain ol' server rendered html. I can switch out the internals entirely for a WC lib, or not, with nobody knowing or caring.

This is a unique advantage to WCs. And it's such a compelling advantage that it makes almost all the downsides tolerable. At least if you are in a position where your component might be used in many places. Design Systems are a good example. The consumer can be any app, built on any technology.

And there are plenty of downsides. But they are mostly felt by the author, not the consumer. Similar to how TS libs can be very complex to author because of type level gymnastics, but when done right are easy to consume.

(I do not push them heavily, but I can appreciate strengths and weaknesses of all tools)

[publicdebates]

As far as I can tell, the whole web components umbrella came into being because React/Vue got really popular, and the spec/browser people said hey let's bring the core common denominator of those into native HTML/JS, as if it would bring us closer to having native Vue/React. Which of course never happened, partly because HTML is fundamentally incapable of having anything but string attribute values, and partly because reactive DOM is basically a hard problem that can't or maybe shouldn't be solved natively.