jsx is not terribly javascripty ... vs direct manipulation of the dom (using static-functions/handlers).
it requires two extra ux-workflow transformations -- 1) transpilation and 2) virtual-dom manipulation, for the sake of oft-quoted faster dom-performance, which some like me are skeptical is true in modern browsers. -kai On Tue, May 21, 2019, 16:35 Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > People use JSX, which is basically E4X, so I'd argue the word useless is > not really appropriate. You can use E4X to produce HTML, the fact we're > talking XML is merely about the E4X background, but as you could produce > strings out of E4X you could do the same and have better templating out of > the box. > > But like I've said, I already use template literal tags, but those strings > don't get hints or highlights as if these were E4X, XML, or plain HTML, > which is the only cool thing I'd personally find useful. > > Maybe it's just a tooling issue though. > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:06 PM ViliusCreator <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > the client, it could still somehow shine in NodeJS though. >> >> >> >> The only way it can shine is only passing HTML objects as arg to website. >> That’s it. And still, you can use string to do that for you. People already >> use JSON and I don’t think they would use XML in Node js. There are already >> tons of libs for XML stuff, yet they don’t have a lot of downloads, as far >> as I remember. >> >> >> >> So basically, Node js doesn’t need XML. That would be useless. >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
