32
Are we ready for javascript without a build step on the front end in 2023? (lemmy.fbmac.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

On the current typescript / anti-typescript internet drama I saw someone mention javascript without a build step.

Do you think we're already there?

Last time I attempted it:

  • there were too many libraries I couldn't import
  • JSX (using babel) had a warning saying you shouldn't do it in the browser for production
  • there was some advice against not using a bundler, because several requests for different .js files is slower and bigger than a bundled package
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Does it still make sense to use javascript? I thought WASM would make JS obsolete and introduce web UI frameworks in other languages.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    WASM’s biggest holdback is that it cannot directly access the DOM. Until then, JS will still have a prominent place in building anything rendered in a browser.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's actually a myth and real world performance isn't affected by this. See this video from leptos creator which is one of the more popular wasm ui framework https://youtu.be/4KtotxNAwME?si=D_vWV1LPQI-C9j8G

    The biggest issue is actually the size of the payload since you need to ship the entire app and language runtime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It’s not a question of performance - it’s just the fact that you need to use JS to modify the DOM in WASM. Until there is access to the DOM from WASM, there simply will be a place for JS in nearly every web app and it’s not because it’s fast, it’s because there are still certain things just need to be done using JS.

    My point is really nothing to do with performance and I agree with the video you’ve linked: WASM is fast enough today. Whenever you can truly stop using JavaScript, I’ll be the first in line. You can already use WASM and eliminate huge portions of JS - but for anything beyond a very simple UI, you always end up with something that needs to be called in JS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    but for anything beyond a very simple UI, you always end up with something that needs to be called in JS.

    Isn't that why god made HTMX? Jokingly asked, but legitimate question - I don't know much about WASM's reach - and I can't seem to watch that video on the train. Could HTMX (+/- hyperscript) take it from there?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You could do HTMX and WASM, but they both have the same problem in that they generally replace elements in the DOM as opposed to interacting with existing elements in the DOM, and most rendering on both HTMX and WASM actually happens through JavaScript calls.

    In either case you’re limited to only interact with the DOM at the level of abstraction that the framework provides through “behind the scenes” JavaScript calls which will always be a subset of the DOM manipulation that is possible by directly using JS. At least, until there’s a standard DOM access API for WASM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •