+1 I think loosing support for templates is a big blow to productivity, although I certainly see the benefits of LitHTML. It's clear that people like templates -- that's why Angular, React, and even Stencil offer them.
I'd be happy with a preprocessor, though... ___ Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Java Champion | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kitomann/> Expert training and consulting: PrimeFaces, PrimeNG, JSF, Java EE, Polymer, Web Components, Angular Virtua, Inc. | virtua.tech JSFCentral.com | @jsfcentral +1 203-998-0403 <(203)%20998-0403> * Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: http://enterprisejavanews.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Joern Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > biggest noticable change in 3.x from 2.x is the complete loss of the > declarative approach for templates. > > I critizised that before and got the encouraging answer that there are > many people behind me in seeing the declarative approach as important. > > Looking at the latest blog article an the example template function the > horror returned ;) > > I keep on nagging on this - IMHO shifting from HTML to JavaScript for the > representation of a Web Component is to state it mildly 'very unlucky'. > > I know the Polymer team is following the current state of the discussion > in the (upcoming) standard but nevertheless the point remains: if > Polymer and Web Components take this direction IMO Web Components loose a > major selling point and are hardly better than many of the JS frameworks > we've seen > over the years. While the representation change seems to be hard to resist > (sometimes i hate democracy ;) there should be at least some way to keep > the template declarative. > > I know the work of standard comitees so i do not blame the Polymer team at > all. However the decision - obviously triggered by the move to js module > loaders - is a technological decision and > not a design or architecture-driven one. That's a poor approach especially > considering the intended long-term relevance of a W3C standard. > > So, first i'd like to know how the current debate is going and apologize > if this is not the right place to ask. > > Second - is there any more appropriate list at the W3C where i can throw > in my 2 cents? The W3C page does not reveal much at first sight and i'm > missing up-to-date minutes as well as latest drafts. > > Thanks a lot. > > Joern > > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/polymer-dev/c82033fc-73dd-47df-9f9e-be9e432ba22e%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/c82033fc-73dd-47df-9f9e-be9e432ba22e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CACTD4Sfcemb2-amnj0RrHya1OO8dKUexVeRMCbrjYa%3Db5KsLLg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
