Programming

17476 readers

132 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi

Are we ready for javascript without a build step on the front end in 2023? (lemmy.fbmac.net)

submitted 1 year ago by fbmac@lemmy.fbmac.net 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

[–] jvisick@programming.dev 2 points 1 year 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.

[–] icesentry@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, I get what you're saying but with rust all that js code is auto generated and you can make a full app without writing a single line of js yourself.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] jvisick@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I keep trying to find a way to play with a web dev stack that doesn't involve JavaScript, but I think that might be a pipe dream...