Please just try HTMX(pleasejusttryhtmx.com) |
Please just try HTMX(pleasejusttryhtmx.com) |
htmx is a great idea, but it's not necessary anymore. We're very close to invokers being baseline (and even that is just an extension of the "composedPath includes -> invoke" pattern), and that will take care of plenty of what htmx was designed to do. Between features like that, and web components, I'm very happy to stick with "plain HTML" (no frameworks; my web components do not draw from a core module or anything).
Also, just a suggestion because it's not technically wrong:
The example of sometimes needing an auto-completing search box is probably not the best one to use. I'm sure it's meant to say "you want the results to be queried from a server/database on every input", which you would certainly need javascript for. But the specific example of just having a search box autocomplete can actually be fulfilled with a datalist element. It won't dynamically re-query results, but it will filter based on input. So it's a muddy example, at best, and that's probably not great for the point trying to be made.
From what I've seen, invokers without extra code are designed for client side interactivity (e.g. showing a modal), which is orthogonal to the (correct, IMO) use case of HTMX. You shouldn't use HTMX to turn every custom user interaction into a network round trip, you should use it instead of fetching JSON. If a user interaction wouldn't trigger a network request if you built your app with react/vue/svelte/{insert_framework_of_choice}, then it shouldn't trigger one if you build it with HTMX either.
You can add custom commands with invokes and custom JS, but at that point you're basically re-implementing HTMX yourself, and I'm not sure what the advantage of that would be over hx-trigger="command" (especially when you also consider using fixi if you don't need all the features of HTMX). There's also the triptych proposals [2] from one of the HTMX maintainers which would add some of HTMX's behaviors to HTML, but those are a long way from being baseline, and may get there.
Exactly. So why use a library? If it's that simple, the suggestion is akin to using a library for a toggle, when a checkbox would do. Yes, there are reasons to do it, but no, it's not what I'm going to do most of the time.
ETA: sorry; I should have mentioned, I'm ignoring server stuff because it's not my use case. I don't hydrate code on a server and send it down to people. I just write HTML or let javascript compose it in the browser. Since I don't use frameworks, that's the way I've developed to be efficient. Since I can't speak to how useful htmx is for server-rendered stuff, I'm staying out of it. Just talking about what htmx can do for me, which is very little.
HTMX deals with loading content into the DOM, not managing display of the DOM.
They serve two different roles and together should handle the majority of javascript framework use cases.
Web Components does cover some of the same use case as HTMX, but is intended for when a server is returning data rather than HTML. It is both more powerful and more complex.
> the specific example of just having a search box autocomplete can actually be fulfilled with a datalist element. It won't dynamically re-query results, but it will filter based on input. So it's a muddy example, at best, and that's probably not great for the point trying to be made.
A prefilled list is never an acceptable solution for a search box. A search box is meant to capture arbitrary input. A filterable datalist is not a search box.
Yes it is. When the query is more expensive than the entire dataset included in some other query, a static list built from previously queried content is the more performant search, even if you want to classify it as a filter. I, as a user, am still searching through this list of unknown nodes even if you, the program, are just filtering what your nodes are for me. All searches are filters; hard lines for best practices only matter insofar as they engage with their practical application.
If you don't need or want all these and are happy with the worse UX, then of course you don't need htmx.
Re your suggestion: datalist makes you select an option, then fills in an input with the value of the option. Then you have to submit the form to actually get the resource you just searched for. Active search gives you the links to the resources directly in the search results, so you can load them with one click. There's a big UX difference.
So I relayed my personal experience with it and then, because of this great comment section, I became aware that I was trying to use it for things that it isn't helpful for. Because, yes, I would have to write custom JS for the functions I would try to invoke with invokers, but I would also have to write custom JS for the functions I would try to invoke with htmx. There's no change, for me, other than including 14kb that I do not need to run a PWA.
So you can take whatever issue you want with my impatience and my myopia in disregarding it as not useful, but my complaints are not immaterial. It doesn't do what I said it doesn't do, and you seem pretty happy to confirm that. I shouldn't have expected a cat to bark, and I regret it. Hell, I'd apologize if someone felt mislead, or if someone feels I'm misleading people in my aspersions. But - like any app - my apps swap out html all of the time and there's nothing that htmx provides that helps me with that in a way that's worth the weight.
Well why not have the benefits of invokers, but today - with HTMX?
HTMX could eventually switch its implementation to use invokers under the hood in the future, and you'd have the convenience of using declarative behaviors on your buttons, today.
> autocomplete can actually be fulfilled with a datalist element
I wish that the spec would cover more use cases, but last time I tried to use it, I couldn't, because it has really bad UX, and is inconsistent across browsers.
Also, like you mentioned, it only works for small data sets that you can deliver with the initial HTML, not large amounts of data which reside on the server.
You could argue that these are use cases where you wouldn't require an auto-complete in the first place, because the data set is too small.
Because I already have the benefit of invokers, today, using the composedPath method. And a map to some functions is usually less, in my experience, than 14kb of js.
[1]: https://astro.build/
I've built enough stuff in my time to know this is hyperbole at best and an outright lie at worst. I've never seen a team fail due to complexity. Team fails because the thing they built was wrong.
You should spend 99% of your time paranoid that the thing you're building is useful enough to justify its existence. Whatever tool you use along the way makes up the last 1%
That'll be item #848 in my 847 line package.json.
Why would you mock it on the client-side if HTMX makes it so simple??
And you can just return JSON from your API.
And you can add JSX later if you want.
CSS, HTML, Apache, MySQL and PHP.
Can someone explain something to me?
To my view, the single best idea React has is that it forces you to encapsulate the full set of states in your component - not anywhere else. For instance, if you have a "Comment" button that becomes "Submitted" after you click it, you must include that state inside the comment component. You can't hide it somewhere else (i.e., in the input field after you press cmd-enter). This is a huge thing for managing complexity - if you spread state updates to a number of different places, it becomes significantly harder to reason about how the button works.
Replacing the button with whatever the server responds with may sound simple, but it really makes it hard to answer the question of "what are all the states this button could be in". I mean, what if the server returns another button... which hits another API... etc?
The weird thing is that HTMX talks about Locality of Behavior (yay!), but doesn't seem to practice it at all?
BTW, one other thing:
> The ecosystem is why your node_modules folder is 2GB. The ecosystem is why there are 14 ways to style a component and they all have tradeoffs. The ecosystem is why "which state management library" is somehow still a debate.
> HTMX's ecosystem is: your server-side language of choice. That's it. That's the ecosystem.
Really? Python is my ecosystem. You know that people add stuff to their node_modules because they need it, right? It's not like we do it for fun. Where am I going to find a date-time picker in Python? Am I going to build it from scratch? Where is an autocomplete component in Python? Or mentions?
I've only toyed around with htmx, but it really is refreshing. Of course you can't do everything that you can do with a fully-fledged client side framework. But once you try it out, you realize that more of the web is just markup + forms than you realized. I wouldn't build a live chat app with htmx, but I would totally build a reporting dashboard.
The premise is that React's "UI=f(state)" creates a synchronization problem that doesn't need to exist.
If the DOM is the authority on state (not a projection of state held elsewhere), there's nothing to sync. You read state from where it already lives.
I built multicardz on this: 1M+ cards, sub-500ms searches, 100/100 Lighthouse scores.
If you have time to read, I would very much like to hear your thoughts; genuine technical pushback welcome.
When you say that the DOM is the authority on state, I’m not sure if that addresses my concern. Let’s revisit my example of the button. Image I look at the DOM and see that it’s in a “Submitted” state, and I think that’s a bug. How can I determine how it got into this buggy state? The DOM can’t answer that question, as far as I can see, because it is only an authority on the current state of the system at this exact moment. The only way I see you answering this question is by scanning every single API endpoint that could have plausibly swapped out the button for its new state - which scales at O(n) to the side of your repository! And if one API could have added HTML which then added more HTML, it seems even worse than that.
The advantage of React is that you get a crisp answer to that question at all times.
> I built multicardz on this: 1M+ cards, sub-500ms searches, 100/100 Lighthouse scores.
I believe you! But I am more concerned about readability. React makes some tradeoffs, but to me readability trumps all.
But it's not, is it? The state lives in the server. If I open a page, and let it open for 2 hours, then there's no guarantee it actually represents the current state.
I reason about state differently, Here are my axioms:
1. There is no such thing as "state".` There is user/ui state, there is cache state, there is db cursor state, etc. trying to manage all of that as big undifferentiated ball is not proper separation of concerns.
2. what I call User State is the user's exceptions that they will find things "as they left them". If as a user, I do a pager refresh, I expect that my user preferences for colors and fonts will still be there. that the sorting on the table I was looking at will still still be there, that the filters I had applied to the table are still there. That is I was editing a record but had not saved, I will still be editing that record without data loss on screen but still not saved to the db (unless the app is explicitly autosave). In a word: the user state is what the user can see.
3. Ideally my User State has a single source of truth, the user can always confirm it by looking at it, and is therefore IN the front end.
4. Most, if not all, other state is stored on the server. things like the user's auth state is a -backend- concern, and should NOT be stored in the frontend.
5. class-oriented programming is extremely difficult to manage: as I like to say, every class is a petri dish for state corruption. I prefer pure functions on the backend for the reason I outline ion the dataos.software blog articles.
Pure functions are mostly deterministic (especially if you avoid floats). So you can not only count on getting the same results for the same query, you can cache them too. And you can test them trivially. Integration test? What's that?
When you capture the User State from the DOM (using a manifest so that you do not need to capture the whole DOM) and send it to the pure function on the back end, you have a perfect event source pattern. Not only can I tell you exactly who and what triggered a particular piece of html being sent o the screen, I can rewind and reply like a tape recorder.
BTW, I have no hate for React. There are some things I think it does better than any other option. I was a core member of the React Studio team (expired cert on the site but safe to visit for archeological purposes).
If you have a predetermined number of things that can be "searched" for, that is a filter box, not a search box. Even if you want to stretch the semantics and call it a search box, it is still a solution that only works for a very small subset of the search box problem space. Your criticism that this semanically stret hed snall subset wasn't explicitly excluded is just silly.
Not only can I can tell you exactly who and what triggered any piece of HTML being sent to screen, I can rewind and replay it like a tape recorder.
The broader philosophical difference: I don't treat "state" as one thing. User State (what the user sees and expects to persist across refresh) lives in the DOM.
Auth state, db cursors, cache: backend concerns. Pure functions on the backend are deterministic; same input, same output, trivially testable.
I have no hate for React; I was a core member of the React Studio team. But for my use cases, this model gives me better debuggability, not worse.
> Inspired by (and in joyful dialogue with) motherfuckingwebsite.com, justfuckingusehtml.com, bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com, and justfuckingusereact.com. Extremism in defense of developer experience is no vice! This site made by me. Does this all sound a bit like shallow slop? Yup, please help make it better.
I agree with you, and wrote a similar one for Markdown that you might enjoy. Same overall naming scheme. (Note: open the comments before you judge the use of a Web Component for rendering purposes.)
You're not a fucking person, this is LLM output.
It starts with the overdone sweary thing then mentions it's overdone and says it's not gonna do it, and it's almost enough to make me think the article is going to offer someone's point of view. But once again the LLM has erased any point of view the author may have had going in (or prevented them from developing it) and replaced it with a mediocre infodump.
I think this is the 5th slop I've seen atop HN in 24 hours.
> This site made by me, with tongue firmly in cheek.
Well, the LLM ruined it, and you didn't even tell us it participated.
EDIT: Decided to dig up the source: https://github.com/algal/pleasejusttryhtmx/commits?author=al...
Looks like the initial commit might well have been generated, and then the document touched up in several following commits.
But there's clearly a person behind it: algal.
But yes, it's "vibes" - although extremely obvious IMO. Extreme usage of headings for paragraphs, which are often just a bullet list or a string of short marketing-speak fluff statements.
That's all aesthetic though and not the offensive part, it's just what makes it obvious. The offensive part is you can read the whole thing and come away with little more than the title. The author's perspective and voice is lost, beyond "they want you to try htmx" I can't tell what they care about or why, I can't tell what it is they were excited to try to convey.
Btw they did just add this to the footer.
> Does this all sound a bit like shallow slop? Yup, please help make it better.
Also the lack of comments calling out the obvious AI style is confusing to me. HN usually jumps on this stuff. Are we just getting tired of calling it out? Or have we just accepted that we're going to read slop sometimes? Or I guess the opportunity to talk about HTMX was probably more important than the post content
But now that it's very easy to produce articles that pass that test but don't have much value beyond that, we're seeing a lot of low quality stuff make it.
I mean nothing is straight LLM, you must prompt them and people are putting their ideas in and linking to other sources and getting stuff like this out. And hopefully editing or iterating, but not enough it would seem most of the time.
I'm saying their perspective doesn't shine through the crap and I'm sick of reading mediocre infodumps from LLMs.
This part is said really well, and applies to anything. "It's just a single weekend" is a cure to the whole "wasting time" argument/excuse that I guess a decent amount of people have - at least I know I do.
Really well written article, having both when to use and when not to use, is a nicely balanced view.
This means that in theory you (as a dev) don't need (to write any) js, nor do your users need to download a full page (for any interaction) like it's 1999. Your webserver replies with fully server-renderd HTML but just for the dom node (say a div) that you want to replace.
It's fun for very simple things, even great for extremely simple interactions modes. For interactive products, anything beyond simple CRUDs, it's madness.
Whenever you want to sprinkle a tiny bit of interactivity you'll have to choose between the path of least resistance (a small hack on HTMX) or a proper way. State management gets out of control real fast, it's the opposite of UI=f(state).
I've seen it go bad, then worse with alpine-js, and then completely ripped in favor of something where people can let the browser do browser things.
[edit for clarity]
The article doesn't define any target audience in specific, so there you go.
I assume I'm not the only person left a little puzzled.
Do you mean "don't need JS" as in like, a full-fledged JS framework?
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/htmx.org@2.0.8/dist/htmx.min.js"></script>
<!-- have a button POST a click via AJAX -->
<button hx-post="/clicked" hx-swap="outerHTML">
Click Me
</button>
As a dev you get to write HTML, and need to learn about some new tag attributes.
Your browser is still running js.
The magic of this is that it's pretty easy to make SPA-like webapps with no javascript or complex client side framework. You can write your server in python, rust, clojure, whatever. If you don't need a lot of state management, it's really simple and awesome.
> This means that in theory you don't need js, nor do your users need to download a full page like it's 1999. Your webserver replies with fully server-renderd HTML but just for the dom node (say a div) that you want to replace.
You got this backwards. With HTMX you need js. But just to swap a div, you can use link target + iframe, like it's 1999.
Your browser will still run js. See sibling thread.
It's for server-rendered content that can be used to build a frontend app. I know because I've done it several times.
> I would also have to write custom JS for the functions I would try to invoke with htmx
The difference is with invokers you would have to re-implement everything from scratch and with htmx you typically only need to implement some parts that it doesn't handle, like eg listening to a DOM event and doing some action in response.
glad you're enjoying your framework, friend!
I noticed the footer, too, and was a bit disappointed. Live and learn!
HTMX serves fully baked HTML that needs to be created on the back-end (or front-end-facing servers)
That is more processing than sending the raw data to the front-end and baking the HTML there.
It is also more bandwidth (unless the JSON is more verbose than the HTML generated).
Lastly, I can generate different HTML fragments on the front-end from the same client-side state with the data only being transported once. How is that working out?
Not necessarily. Often it is less. Template engines can be very, very efficient and fast.
Returning JSON almost always requires data/object serialization on the server, this is often slower than direct data/object -> template rendering.
Further, it's not your server but keep in mind the client must de-serialize JSON and render some HTML every time.
Modifying layouts as a result of non-persistent state (light/dark mode, sorting, etc) can usually be handled relatively easily with styles and data- attributes and sprinkles of JS. HTMX works very well with Alpine.JS and similar libraries for more complex situations.
HTMX isn't for every scenario, but it works very very well in many scenarios.
https://github.com/jon49/htmz-be
It's amazing how much further you can go when you flip the server as the one deciding where what should be updated on the page.
This was originally conceived by datastar and nomini also implements it this way. And HTMX 4.0 will have this as a first class citizen.
(Also, I don’t think we can go back to XSLT in the same sense that I can’t go back to the moon.)
After a bit of searching all the examples I could see use JavaScript to glue the HTTP request making part and then invoke the XSLT processor so it looks like the answer is "no".
> the build time is over 30 seconds!
that's silly. 30 seconds building time is nothing compare to the accumulated time you wait for micro changes to your frontend.
for typical web development using react/vue/svelte you have hot code reloading, which can reload the current website < 1 seconds after you hit [Save] on your favorite editor.
for htmx to update, you have to wait for your whole server to reload (which can be way slower even you use interpreted languages like ruby or python, due to complexity of the framework you use).
not to mention it does not keep any state of the current website, make debugging way more troublesome compare to a js mature framework.
only people who never have to improve their website incrementally think htmx is a viable option. or insane people.
obviously, for some small websites with minimal interactions or no need to change the content very often, then htmx can be good, but for that case, vanilla js also works, and they do not need 14kb of excess baggage.
Only backend developers that think frontend is trivial and we’re all just idiots think that HTMX is the solution. They saw it working in their hello world side project and think they discovered gold.
> And suddenly you've got:
> A package.json with 847 dependencies
> A build step that takes 45 seconds (if the CI gods are merciful)
> State management debates polluting your pull requests
> Junior devs losing their minds over why useEffect runs twice
> A bundle size that would make a 56k modem weep
No? React is surprisingly small, and if you're in dependency hell then fix that. The alternative is another idiom.
And if you glue packages together you're basically reinventing frameworks. This can be a good thing or a bad thing.
Regardless of your choice between glueing libs or a framework, you'll end up with tons of dependencies for most non-trivial projects anyway.
Just pure eval(). [1]
1. htmx.config.allowEval: defaults to true, can be used to disable htmx’s use of eval for certain features (e.g. trigger filters)
UPDATE: the second visit to the page on Safari didn't have the issue. It's interesting to note that some people might have that effect though... reloads on Safari occasionally for whatever reason. Or it could be something rare on my end.
For things with heavy interaction (drag and drop, chat etc.), I find the code to make it work with HTMX is just too clumsy to work with as a mental model.
> The server just returns HTML (not JSON, actual HTML)
I like to separate presentation HTML from the data (returned from HTTP request). Some like to make backends that do nothing but serve the (singular) frontend, even running templates to make the HTML they return for easy consumption. That's not where I draw the line.
Dx resources must aim AI's attention having enormous technical documentation and be AI efficient in order to become mainstream.
I believe no other shiniest thing will ever make cognitive nest in humans. We are overloaded.
And every months a few of those modules try to exfiltrate your credentials…
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guid...
https://justfuckingusereact.com
With all the examples people keep using, I assumed it would be way smaller. 16kb minified is a lot.
Looking at the docs just now the core api seems reasonable, but it a lot larger than I'd assumed.
https://github.com/bigskysoftware/fixi
1181kb brotli'd (no minification)
I'd bet that almost any site which isn't intentionally bare bones will have a lot more than 16KB of JS.
Oh now now, even senior devs do this too :)
I switched to Hotwire/Stimulus and found it to be a significantly better implementation of the same core concepts. I'd highly recommend checking them out.
Install an open source admin panel and call it a day.
You can use JavaScript for it.
I've been trying lately ruby templates with some occasional JS for this and it works great.
Or implement a straight forward web component.
They are standard, they work, they're great.
The second half of the video is great too, I love seeing the actual prompts that go into the LLM.
And I don't think you wasted my time, I'm sorry if "you're not a person" came off directed at you, when my complaint is really that I couldn't find you through all the tokens. I'm glad the video remedied that.
Also, morphdom/idiomorph get you a long way even when you have highly interactive pages, especially if you have to hit the back end anyways. If you don't need to hit the back end then a front end lib is fine. But even then, the simpler pattern of hypermedia-driven applications can be better.
See https://github.com/jon49/Soccer as an example of this.
if you can imagine having just one "end", maybe you can use htmx
Well you didn’t write standard HTML attributes, you wrote custom attributes that are picked up by a JS framework, so potentially the worst of both worlds depending on your problem space.
Having tried HTMX a few times, the problem is firmly in creating a backend that feeds it properly. It’s a disjointed experience for anything more complicated than updating content.
To be honest this might be a skill issue or something I haven’t understood properly with these frameworks.
I personally prefer UIs with great encapsulation/composition, which used to be Vue, but with AI starting to write more of my UIs now I've switched to React/Next.js for new non-progressive UIs.
https://security.googleblog.com/2025/10/https-by-default.htm...
Thats the thing I don't like. I don't want parts of the structure of my page coming from the backend server. I just want that to send data, as JSON and for the front end to handle that into whatever structure it deems suitable.
That way all of the front end code is in one place.
Yes It has a "learning curve" but so does everything (even React).
Also Angular is now about twenty thousand times simpler than it was in the past as you can use Signals for reactivity, and basically ignore Observables for 95% of things.
Angular also removes the a lot of the negatives outlined in the page - no npm, no node_modules, no ecosystem fatigue, no debates on state management etc etc. Everything you need is included in one dependency you can load from a CDN.
I never liked that in react you are mangling the presentation and business logic in one tsx file (separation of concerns? React ignores that lesson for some reason). Htmx feels even worse in this way because now you also have html snippets and templates in your backend code too! Nightmare! Angular let's you leave the templates as standalone files and not mushed into your typescript like react (although you can inline them into the typescript if you want to, but obviously no one does that for anything apart from the most trivial of components)
It made the site look like a SPA without having to write any extra code. How cool is that.
HTMX resembled me this library. But it seems very narrow cased, there are only so many attributes and their values and you cannot implement anything else. While pjax is generic: you can attach it to any site which has links.
Also you cannot replace Vue (don't use React) with HTMX. For example, if you are making a diagram editor, HTMX won't be useful.
> "But what about complex client-side state management?"
> You probably don't have complex client-side state. You have forms. You have lists. You have things that show up when you click other things. HTMX handles all of that.
On the other hand,
> I'm not a zealot. HTMX isn't for everything.
> Genuinely complex UI state (not "my form has validation" complex—actually complex)
But my interpretation is that any UI which displays the same data in just two places (like a "new notification" indicator as well as bolding new messages in an inbox, or a list of articles which can change dynamically as well as a count of the number of articles) is "complex" enough that you'll need client side state.
> htmx is a library that allows you to access modern browser features directly from HTML, rather than using javascript.
From React website:
> React lets you build user interfaces out of individual pieces called components. Create your own React components like Thumbnail, LikeButton, and Video. Then combine them into entire screens, pages, and apps.
Apples and Oranges.
The main problem for me was storing/passing state between too many fragments. At some point some pages can become too complex to be manageable by HTMX, unfortunately. Lots of little fragments depending on each other, I began struggling to maintain a clear mental map of what was going on.
I'd say if React is more like functional programming, HTMX sometimes feels like GOTO programming.
I'm however more curious about going the other way, i.e. you start a project with Htmx which happily grows but after a while, a large feature is requested which inevitably changes the direction of the app into React use-case territory. I can't think of concrete example but you now have to work around it with htmx or commit to rewriting to React (or alternative). Wonder what are thoughts of people who had to deal with this
Hmmm.... I wonder why that is......
Your demo shouldn't have explicit lies, such as "It worked. That was an actual HTMX POST request. The "server" returned this HTML and HTMX swapped it in."
I mean, I guess maybe it made an HTMX POST request, not an HTTP POST request? But this does reduce my trust in the article.
Too bad that the world insists on going nuts with JS everything.
Oh as a plus, AI agents are a lot more productive when dealing with server side logic.
You can do this with plain old Javascript. Make a request, swap out the [inner | outer]HTML with the result. If you want a nice visual transition, wrap the swap in a startViewTransition(). Obviously, you need to be extra careful if you're using user-submitted HTML. Otherwise, it's fairly straight forward.
Agent one: handles the request and does tool calls
Agent two: reads the result and decides on quality vs a re-drive if it’s low quality
Agent three: decides how to present the information to the user, creates a collection of HTMX elements
HTMX hx-get is reliably, and beautifully rendering the result of the Agentic Workflow without any react, etc.
Very happy and passing quality gates. I love not having security alerts every week to patch because of some buried react dependency library
<button hx-post="/clicked" hx-swap="outerHTML">
No, I'll keep using hiccup and similar things that are just data and nothing more, no syntax, just functions and built-in data structures, then give me HTML as a string which consumers can do whatever with, and we're golden.
<a href=“/clicked”>click me</a>May not be as standard as a CA model in the current landscape, but trust on first use has shown to be perfectly fine for SSH, and has the advantage that you're not trusting third parties to only sign valid certificates for authorized parties.
> modern browsers warn about self-signed certificates the same as HTTP
So if I can read and understand those browser warning and am not a complete idiot, I will close the browser tab instead of proceed despite the warning. Which is the correct choice.
So now I cannot read the website at all.
Otherwise, if I do make the bad decision and accept the certificate, I don't know what will happen. But with HTTP, at least the browser says clearly that the site is unsafe.
So the fact that the website does have a certificate and serves HTTPS, as suggested in the GP, is completely irrelevant and useless.
> trust on first use has shown to be perfectly fine for SSH
If that is MY server or a server I trust/can verify. I don't know about you, but I never SSH into someone else's server and just blindly accept the keys. GitHub, for example, provides their SSH keys: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-accou...
https://htmx.org/essays/when-to-use-hypermedia/
Also, please try unpoly:
It’s another excellent hypermedia oriented library
Edit: the article is actually not nearly as unreasonable as I thought based on the just-f*king-use template. Still prefer a chill vibe for htmx though.
> Another practical reason not to use htmx is that there are, rounding off, zero htmx jobs.
> I just did a search for htmx jobs on indeed and found a grand total of two: one at Microsoft and one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
> A search for “react”, on the other hand, gives 13,758 jobs.
> Seriously, developer, which of these two technologies do you want to hitch your career to?
I do not advocated for htmx; but this take is so bad!
Resume-driven development should not be a thing. If you are a professional developer, building a product for a user, your primary concern should not be the job market for when you quit the company you are working for, but rather making the best product possible for the user within the context of the current company. And if the product is such that it does not call for react, or some other javascript-rich client, then you shouldn't use it however many react jobs there may be on Indeed.
Want to make a dropdown that updates a enumerated field on a record? Easy.
Want to make a modal dialog when users create a new content item? Easy.
Want a search box with autocomplete? Easy.
As I see it the basic problem of RIA front ends is that a piece of data changed and you have to update the front end accordingly. The complexity of this problem ranges from:
(1) One piece of information is updated on the page (Easy)
(2) Multiple pieces of information are updated but it's a static situation where the back end knows what has to be updated (Easy, HTMX can update more than one element at a time)
(3) Multiple pieces of information but it's dynamic (think of a productivity or decision support application which has lots of panes which may or may not be visible, property sheets, etc -- hard)
You do need some adaptations on the back end to really enjoy HTMX, particularly you have to have some answer to the problem that a partial might be drawn as part of a full page or drawn individually [1] and while you're there you might as well have something that makes it easy to update N partials together.
[1] ... I guess you could have HTMX suck them all down when the page loads but I'd be worried about speed and people seeing incomplete states
None of this mentions anything at all mentioned in the parent post.
Was it just a shameless way to ride on what would become a top comment?
I'm currently working on a side project in Rails using Stimulus but sometimes I wonder if Stimulus is overkill with all of the controllers and stuff as well. Do you have an opinion on when you should reach for something like Inertia or Stimulus over htmx?
htmx is lower level and focuses on generalizing the idea of hypermedia controls
I'm not yet sure whether this is a good thing or not -- I'll let you know once my latest iteration of my web framework is finally working as I envisioned, he-said sort-of-jokingly, which should be Soon Now.
But yeah, either alternative still beats React by a country mile, since everything related to that descends into madness right away.
Said the horse with laser eyes (¬_¬)
Third link on the page ("read the long story") points to https://triskweline.de/unpoly-rugb/, which renders as a blank page with NoScript enabled.
Sigh.
Still not perfect -- the demos should work too. I love the idea of a progressive framework and am willing to work around a few things to get it.
And if there was originally a harsher response which I missed, well then I hope it wasn't merited.
I'm pretty light-hearted about this topic! It's more fun that way.
The problem you've encountered is that people are annoying. I'm afraid that's not specific to any one technology or community. Fortunately, annoying blog posts are easily ignored and would never stop a useful tool from being adopted anyway.
Of course it will work. I can vibe code the most terrible web framework you have seen within 20 minutes and claim it is better than React, but what does it prove?
> You write zero JavaScript > The whole library is ~14kb gzipped
Oh sure, if there is nothing else in your UI, and if your Python/Go/whatever backend server has 0 dependency, which almost never happens.
My startup did.
And now we’re going to rip it all out and move to a React front-end.
HTMX makes response handling much more complex. Every endpoint returns 3–5 different HTML fragments. Frontend and backend must agree on every scenario — success, validation errors, system errors, partial updates, full reloads.
And HTMX is still a fairly obscure library. The documentation and examples are lacking, there isn’t a real set of established best practices at scale, and not for nothing, LLMs aren’t great at it.
React is mature, used at scale, provides separation of concerns, and is great for agentic AI coding. HTMX has its place for simple projects, but for anything non-trivial, it’s a no for me.
No bundler required, no compilation step.
Alpine data objects can grow to be quite large, so you wind up inlining hundreds of lines of JS as strings within your HTML template, which often limits your editor's ability to do JS checks without additional config.
State management in Alpine is implicit and nested and not a serious solution for building commercial apps IMO.
And don't even get me started on unsafe-eval.
If it's your hobby app and you are the developer and the product owner, go for Alpine. If you're working at a company that is asking you to build a competitive web product in 2025, use a more robust tool. Hotwire and Stimulus has scaled much better from an organization standpoint in my experience.
And now I'm at the breaking point. So I'm planning to move to tailwind and Go templates, but honestly, i was hopeful for htmx, so I need to properly see the usecase. Which i don't know is this. It reminds me of Angular a lot...
If your solution is actually good, it will get adopted eventually...
Forget React, there's still stuff written in jQuery and JSP.
Why the rush to convert everything - you're not a missionary on a mission, just build your stuff in stuff you like?
The attack on npm is ridiculous, when (apart from introducing a permanent vulnerability in the form of a runtime dependency on a third party site), you still need npm for htmx.
Also, mobile apps often have different API needs than webapps, so they end up getting different APIs anyway.
The idea that HTMX removes all the complexity is false. However it does remove some of it, and moves the rest onto the backend.
I find the backend easier to work with, so that's a win for me.
And a batteries included framework (like Laravel or Django) makes HTMX even more appealing. They already have everything you need! :)
In my experience, a lot of SPAs transfer more data than the front-end actually needs. One team I worked on was sending 4MB over the wire to render 14kb of actual HTML. (No, there wasn't some processing happening on the front-end that needed the extra data.) And that was using graphql, some dev just plunked all the fields in the graphql query instead of the ones actually needed. I've seen that pattern a lot, although in some cases it's been to my benefit, like finding more details on a tracking website than the UI presented.
Just look at the source code of amazon.com. It's a mess. But I bet it is more of an organizational problem than a tech stack problem, for a website worked on by literally hundreds of teams (if not more) where everyone crams their little feature in the website home page
I find that some techs tend to cause badly written code. I have junior coworkers that can write clear Python after a short intro, but can't write clean R after a year using it daily. I don't know if it is caused by the philosophy behind the language, the community, the tutorials and docs...
However, I’ve recently made the difficult decision to rewrite the frontend in React (specifically React/TS, TanStack Query, Orval, and Shadcn). In a perfect world, I'd rewrite the python backend in go, but I have to table that idea for now.
The reason? The "LLM tax." While HTMX is a joy for manual development, my experience the last year is that LLMs struggle with the "glue" required for complex UI items in HTMX/Alpine. Conversely, the training data for React is so massive and the patterns so standardized that the AI productivity gains are impossible to ignore.
Recently, I used Go/React for a microservice that actually has turned into similarly complex scale as the python/htxm app I focused on most of the year, and it was so much more productive than python/htmx. In a month of work I got done what took me about 4-5 months in python/htmx. I assume because the typing with go and also LLM could generate perfectly typed hooks from my OpenAPI spec via Orval and build out Shadcn components without hallucinating.
I still love the HTMX philosophy for its simplicity, but in 2024/2025, I’ve found that I’m more productive choosing the stack that the AI "understands" best. For new projects, Go/React will now my default. If I have to write something myself again (God, I hope not) I may use htmx.
Any big reason to use HTMX instead? Is Turbo not really discussed much because of it's association to RoR?
I get server-side rendering. I can boot my server, and everything is there. If my model changes, I can update the view. It's cohesive.
I get client-side rendering. The backend returns data, the frontend decides what to do with it. It's a clear separation. The data is just data, my mobile app can consume the same "user" endpoint.
This seems like a worst-of-both-worlds paradigm, where the backend needs to be intimately aware of the frontend context. Am I not getting it or is there a massive implicit coupling?
Now if I need to display the same "user" data twice, in different formats, on my website. Say, as a table in "My account", and as a dropdown in the menu bar. Do I need to write two endpoints in the backend, returning the same data in two different formats?
Browsers keep changing along with people's expectation of what a website or app should be capable of.
Meanwhile on the backend land, the same MVC framework from 2 decades ago can still deliver acceptable results.
Why not "just use HTML"?
First - simple use cases sure great. But imagine you have to update some element out of the from tree. Now you need to have OOB swaps and your HTML must contain that fragment.
Not just that your server template code now has to determine if it is HTMX request and only render OOB fragments if so.
Even at decent size app, soon it turns super brittle.
Yet to talk about complicated interfaces. Let's not go complicated just think of variants in an E-commerce admin panel.
3 variants with 5 values each these are 125 SKU rows that must be collapsed group wise.
htmx can do it but it's going to be very very difficult and brittle.
So it is surely very useful but it is NOT the only tool for all use cases.
This is super simple to do if you are using a library to generate HTML in your backend programming language.
> Not just that your server template code now has to determine if it is HTMX request and only render OOB fragments if so.
This is literally just a function that checks for a couple of headers, chooses between two rendering options, and adds a `Vary` response header to take care of the caching. Hardly anything complicated.
> htmx can do it but it's going to be very very difficult and brittle.
The problem with this summary is that it misses the point–htmx is not doing backend stuff, your backend app server is. Htmx is just swapping in what the backend sends.
> it is NOT the only tool for all use cases.
The OP said exactly this, the htmx people have always said this, and no one ever claimed otherwise. There are people out there who don't think in absolute all-or-nothing terms.
The issue with htmx is that it is fairly prescriptive of how one should go about building dynamic interactions, and it becomes complex quickly if the dynamic interaction is more than trivial. I don't disagree with its philosophy at all (as I say, I use it for my own site) but it becomes an issue when my product owner tells me that I need to do some funny dynamic thing because it will make the business or clients happy (for some reason), and then it becomes a mission to wrangle it with htmx attributes. And I have to follow that, because as much as it pains me to say it, making stuff pretty and dynamic on the UI is an easy way to score points. It is one of those areas of enterprise software development which seems like a huge upgrade to non-technical people whilst not requiring too much effort.
The one thing raw JavaScript is quite well suited for is hacking together some DOM manipulation. I dislike JavaScript in every other domain except this - its in this arena where its leniency is very useful.
Okay, but on the other hand maybe you should do the right thing and say no.
I really liked HTMX, and I thank the authors for this marvelous library!
I switched from Turbo to HTMX because the latter is much more flexible, and I try to avoid Node.js as much as possible, only using it to compile some JavaScript code for Stimulus.
I finally moved from HTMX to Unpoly for the following reasons:
1. Layer support: Unpoly makes it easy to create layers and modal overlays, saving a lot of time and JavaScript code. You can achieve the same functionality with HTMX, but you have to write more code.
2. JavaScript code is better organized thanks to up.compile hooks.
3. HTMX and Unpoly treat fragments slightly differently. With HTMX, you have to use an out-of-band feature to update multiple fragments together. With Unpoly, you can easily add them to the response (and declare them in the front end, of course).
In my opinion, Unpoly has a better-organized approach to everything. On the other hand, apart from the official documentation, it is difficult to find examples for some edge-case features.
Given sufficient time and money (20+ years, and billions (trillions?) of dollars - which is what we've thrown at web apps) you could build GUI apps using the IRC protocol, but it will never work well.
LLM generated code probably tips the scales toward using react though. You can have the bots churn through all that boiler plate, it won't be any worse than what human react devs write, and keep the bots away from your mission critical code because it isn't all munged together like in a SSR app.
Ding! Ding! You win the prize. Absolutely correct.
The only reason react seems to look beautiful is because it's compared to custom JavaScript state management rather than the server-state paradigm that probably makes most sense for over 90% of apps.
The only real place it makes sense is when you're Google or Facebook and those 15 milliseconds actually translate to quantifiable lost user attention.
If your app is actually useful and not just an attention farm, those 15ms are almost never worth your engineering team's sanity.
I appreciate the basic demos, but I think what would really sell me is showing the extensibility story. Show me what it looks like when I need it to do something a bit beyond what it has in the box. Where do I add the JavaScript for that? Is it raw, inline, or are we back to packages and bundling and a build step? Am I building application JS, or some kind of extension or plugin to htmx itself? How chained am I going to be to its specific paradigms and opinions?
The page says htmx isn't for writing a true SPA like Google Docs, but where's the line? Show me an app that has pushed up against the limits of this system, and what happens in that scenario.
I'm not sure "fear" is exactly the right word here, but it's something I consciously evaluate for when looking at any new framework or library. Anything that has a lot of "magic" or "by-convention" type config is subject to this.
You start with the "hello world" example, and then you hit that wall. The test of an awesome framework vs a fundamentally limited (or even broken) one is: can you build on what you have with extensions, or do you have to rewrite everything you did? There's a lot of these where as soon as you want to do something slightly custom, you can't use _any_ of the magic and have to redo everything in a different way.
This isn't just libraries either. Another almost worse example is AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Simple way to get an app up and going, and it handles a lot of the boilerplate stuff for you. The problem is as soon as you want to extend it slightly, like have another custom load balancer route, you actually have to completely abandon the entire thing and do _everything_ yourself.
This is a really hard thing to get right, but in my view is one of the things that contributes to a framework's longevity. If you hit that wall and can't get past it, the next project you do will be in something else. Once enough people start posting about their experiences hitting the wall, other people won't even pick it up and the framework dwindles to a niche audience or dies completely.
I think this scenario would either be very apparent early on in the project, or wouldn't actually be that challenging. There are a couple ways you could run into the limits of HTMX:
1. You require purely client side interactivity. The right (IMO) way to use HTMX is as a replacement for sending JSON over the wire and rendering it into HTML on the client, so if your app has features that _wouldn't_ be done that way, you should reach for something else. Fortunately there's lots of solutions to this problem. You can use built in browser features to achieve a lot of the basics now (e.g. the <details> tag means you don't really need custom scripts if you just want an accordion), write simple vanila scripts, or adopt light weight libraries like alpinejs or the creator of HTMX's (only slightly deranged) hyperscript.
2. Maybe your purely client side interactivity needs are complex enough that you do need a SPA framework. At that point you can adopt the islands architecture and create interactive components in your fraemwork of choice, but continue to use hypermedia to communicate with the backend.
3. If you can't easily separate client side state (handled with javascript, potentially with the aid of frameworks) from server state (handled on the server and sent to the client via hypermedia), you can again adopt the islands architecture and have your islands manage their own network requests to the backend.
4. If the above applies to all of your app, then hypermedia/HTMX is a bad fit. But this should generally be pretty obvious early on, because it's about the basic, fundamental nature of the app. You probably know you're building google docs when you start build google docs, not mid-way through.
That’s really your call to make. I’ve never went the full build step with it, but I’ve only built some internal dashboards and crud apps with it.
React is easy for small websites so why would I use a separate framework when I can use one framework for everything?
e.g. effect-ts which makes error handling, dependency injection, concurrency, retries, stack safety, interruptions, etc, simple but the hello world already hits people with "wait, it's 6 lines of code to print hello world!? Trash".
App (can take a few seconds to spin up if dormant): https://estimate.work/
More, but I don't think it's a mind-blowing difference and I wasn't playing code golf when I wrote it. I wouldn't have used redux if I was!
source: https://github.com/basecamp/fizzy
I don't think this is a better approach than React. It's just an approach. It's viable. It's fine
Like c'mon, if I'm using Vue, I'm using Vue. Same for React. Strap me into the native state management solution for your framework, your router, your preconfigured bundler. I'm not here to mess about or I'd have just stuck with vanilla.
Here is what my htmx apps have: - Single-purpose endpoints: Each endpoint returns ONE thing (a card list, a tag cloud, a form fragment) - Optimistic UI: Preferences like font/theme update the DOM immediately; the save is fire-and-forget with no response needed - Simple error handling: Most endpoints either succeed (return HTML) or fail (HTTP error code) - No fragment orchestration: Not returning 3-5 fragments; using hx-swap-oob sparingly
Here is how I update fonts on screen in user prefs: User selects font → JS updates body class immediately → htmx.ajax() saves in background → done
vs. the anti-pattern you're describing:
User submits form → backend validates → returns success fragment OR error fragment OR partial update OR redirect signal → frontend must handle all cases
No language or programming paradigm is perfect. All programming is an exercise in tradeoffs. The mark of a good CTO or architect is that ability to draw out the best of the technology selection and minimize the tradeoffs.
These days, I admit, though, the ship has sailed for me and htmx. My main app frontend is React and since the LLMs all know much more than I do about how to build out UIs and are 100x faster than me, I'll probably be sticking with React.
Just curious because when I used HTMX I didn't enjoy this part.
The problem with SPAs is the ecosystem. I recently found packages like this [1] and this [2] in my node_modules and that is insanity. But the architecture honestly makes way more sense than any other paradigm: server side is a well defined API and the client renders UI and handles local state.
Well, frontend and backend always need to agree on every scenario, that's why I prefer to do validation on backedn and frontend to just display it and not do any validation.
As someone who's been parsing everything entering the system from 2018, I don't believe you can have performance issues by parsing the data entering the system, the only exception I can name in a decade was real time trading app where the data coming in all time was just gargantuan that parsing it all the time was impacting UX and even then there should be an argument for the backend insisting on sending whole data instead of the latest value.
Definitely sad to see this everywhere nowadays, tech choices made because of AI
When is this not the case?
Thus, it’s considered normal that the backend team spits out some JSON and doesn’t know or care what the frontend team does with it.
With HTMX that distinction doesn’t exist so much (the frontend consists of fragments generated by the backend) so you will need a different organizational approach. The “frontend” folks will need to write a lot of “backend” code, but presumably in a separable layer.
Most of the frontend stuff I do is for internal pages on embedded devices, and I'm very happy with a structure where I have the frontend being a full React fancy component lib SPA that is eventually just compiled down to a zip bundle of files that the backend needs to know nothing about and can serve as dumb files. The backend is a JSON API of sorts that I would need to build anyway for other use cases.
What would you return instead? It's easy to generate HTML, because that's what your server is already generating (and that's about all it should generate).
You're argument is fine assuming you wish to become another react frontend in a sea of react frontends.
But the documentation example is a terrible argument, the benefit of HTMX is it is easy to understand what is actually happening. There is no magic, you don't need to dive through millions of lines of code to figure out what this is doing like react. It's very basic javascript. Just read the library, frankly you don't even need any documentation. Just take 15 mins and read the entire library.
Whats the big deal here?
And why would that differ from React?
When I was building a website with React, I needed to model a "apply coupon" endpoint with different states (coupon applied, coupon does not exist, coupon exists but has reached its max usage limit) and it was so annoying because you needed to
1. The backend route that returns JSON with a different model depending on the coupon state
2. The JSON models for each response type
3. And then on the frontend you need to load the data, parse the JSON, figure out which "response state" it is (http status code? having a "type" field on the JSON?) convert the JSON to HTML and then display it to the user
In my experience it added a lot of extra "mental overhead". It is something that should be extremely simple that ends up being unnecessarily complex, especially when you need to do that for any new feature you want to add.
When using htmx, a simple implementation of that would be
1. A backend route that returns HTML depending on the coupon state
2. Some htmx attributes (hx-post, hx-swap) on the frontend to make the magic happen
Don't get me wrong, there are places that you wouldn't want to use htmx (heavily interactive components) but that's why htmx recommends the "islands of interactivity" pattern. This way you can make the boring things that would add unnecessary complexity when using React with htmx, and then you can spend the unused "mental overhead" with the interactive components. (which, IMO, makes it a more enjoyable experience)
At the end of the day it is just choices: Some people may prefer the React approach, some people may prefer the htmx approach. All of them have their own upsides and downsides and there isn't a real answer to which is better.
But for my use case, htmx (truth to be told: I use my own custom library that's heavily inspired by htmx on my website, but everything that I did could be done with htmx + some htmx extensions) worked wonderfully for me, and I don't plan on "ripping it all out" anytime soon.
Whereas with HTMX you learn a very, very basic concept in 15mins, and you're good to go for the next decade(s), and it will be more than enough for 80% of your projects.
Same as with vim and Emacs vs. proprietary IDEs and text editors.
Because people don't like using heavyweight solutions needlessly. That's the logic that begat C++ and Ada and Multics and ASN.1 and CORBA. All of which were good solutions useful for "everything" in their domain. But people hate them, mostly.
Historically big "everything" solutuions end up losing in the market to lighter weight paradigms with more agility and flexibility. Almost every time. React[1] was such a solution once!
[1] Which really is a shorthand for "modern node-based web development with tens of thousands of npm dependencies and thirteen separately-documented API and deployment environemnts to learn".
Objection. Your React is ultimately turning into HTML so you DO have to learn HTML + CSS. You just have an abstraction over it.
Yet I know roughly what it is, but I couldn't begin to actually write the stuff myself.
Good abstractions mean you don't have to worry about the layer below.
Now of course it's not really the case that React holds up to being a good abstraction, especially when it comes to CSS and styling, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that abstractions force you to learn the level below.
Otherwise we'd all spend half our time learning assembly.
I do have sympathy though for a developer who just wants to focus on the higher level paradigm and let the library maintainers worry about the innards.
if you care about have a solid UI, you should learn everything
you should learn css, react, svelte, vue, rails, tailwind, html
if you don't and you say you actually care about your UI, your opinion is actually irrelevant
HTMX is less noisy if you integrate it into your backend framework.
A contact of mine build a python/flask app. To simplify coding, he wrote a file to extend the flask framework to support the HTMX patterns he needed with just a single line of boilerplate. Took him about a day, his team is happy with the results.
I'd love to hear more about that.
The reality is it's going to suit some people and some languages really well and others not so well. I think I like html/css/js and using AI to generate that. But I also like Go templates and trying to isolate that in a programmatic way. I find htmx in principle, a good idea, but when I actually tried to use it, fundamentally the wrong tool for me.
I used to believe this when I first started in tech. The truth is even something as seemingly innocent as javascript runtimes now have an incredible amount of money behind them. And sometimes even marketing budgets. Deno released a high-production trailer for their 2.0 release last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swXWUfufu2w
I've also seen some really cool and well-thought out technologies simply not gain any traction.
The truth is you ultimately do need some big company behind you or major personality writing blog posts to ultimately make it.
Techies don't like to admit it but we're just as reliant on influencers as anyone else.
This has never been more incorrect. The entire world of software is people using garbage solutions because the CTO is convinced Oracle/Microsoft/what ever new random software is the best thing since sliced bread. In no fashion has the best software solution ever been a factor.
I wish this were true.
Unfortunately, often the things that get adopted are the things hyped up the most, not the ones which are technically superior.
Popularity, marketing budgets and inertia often dictate what's popular.
As with all biases, we need to actively and deliberately work against these forces, if we value craftsmanship and professionalism.
Imagine you need firstName/email in once place, firstName/email in another, and firstName/D.O.B in another.
In a plain JSON world, I'd craft a single "user" endpoint, returning those three datapoints, and I would let the frontend handle it. My understanding is with HTMX, I'd have to craft (and maintain/test) three different endpoints, one per component.
I feel like you would quickly end up in a combinatorial explosion for anything but the simplest page. I really don't get the appeal at all. Of course everything can be very simple and lightweight if you hide the complexity under the bed!
Ultimately the frontend state cannot exist without the backend, where data is persisted. Most apps don't need the frontend state, all it really gives you is maybe a better UX? But in most cases the tradeoff in complexity isn't worth it.
I don't see how it's any simpler to shift partial presentation duties to the backend. Consider this example:
https://htmx.org/examples/active-search/
The backend is supposed to respond with the rows to fill a table. You have an extremely tight coupling between the two. Something as simple as changing the order of the columns would require three releases:
- A new version of the backend endpoint - A frontend change to consume the new endpoint - A version to delete the old endpoint
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I fail to see how this makes any sense.
Consider something as simple as an action updating content in multiple places. It happens all the time: changing your name and also updating the "Hello $name" in the header, cancelling an order that updates the order list but also the order count ...
There's _four_ ways to do it in HTMX. Each "more sophisticated" than the previous one. Which is one really wants, sophistication, isn't it?
https://htmx.org/examples/update-other-content/
I really struggle to decide which example is worse. Not only the backend needs to be aware of the immediate frontend context, it also needs to be aware of the entire markup.
In example two, a seemingly innocuous renaming of the id of the table would break the feature, because the backend uses it (!) to update the view "out of band".
I'm really trying to be charitable here, but I really wonder what niche this is useful for. It doesn't seem good for anything complex, and if you can only use it for simple things, what value does it bring over plain javascript?
The "two endpoints" concern assumes you're fetching fragments independently. If you're composing a full page server-side, the data is already there
There's an example on their website where the header of a table is defined in the frontend, and the body is returned by the backend. If I wanted something as simple as switching the order of the columns, I'd actually need to create a new version of my backend endpoint, release it, change the frontend to use the new endpoint, then delete the old one. That sounds crazy to me.
But you have no idea if it does that, you just have the word of the PO who's not actually building anything, they're at best just copying what others are doing (ie being derivative) or at worst just doing guesswork.
How about offering an alternative: a UI/UX that takes the web as it is, a primarily document-based format with navigation and data entry? A lot of cool stuff can be built on top of that.
Just like how easy jQuery was to get started with back in the day, but a whole framework
It is not. React 18 changed damn near everything. You can't create a new React 17 project without jumping through serious hoops. React 19.5 introduced the compiler, so you can stop using useCallback and useMemo. Except for "common scenarios" where you still need it. Which are about as clear as mud.
I can only imagine what React 20 is going to introduce.
And this is how your company ultimately loses in the market. For every bloated incumbent you will get a snappy new competitor. Keep saying 'it's not worth it to try new stuff', right until you finally realize you never learned anything new and now your company made you redundant.
Which is exactly why the uncool solutions persist in the market. They're useful and practical! If they weren't they never would have been successful at all. I'm just saying that that this is fundamentally the logic of the frumpy old curmudgeon, and the kids will always have something better to offer along with their confusing new ideas.
And to be clear, I'm also just saying that as someone looking in from the outside (I do firmware!) the front end webdev developer onboarding story has long since jumped the complexity shark and things are quite frankly an impenetrable disaster ripe for disruption.
But have you tried it though? Don’t you think it’s time to give your story? Slam your needs to htmx and see what comes out of it’s ruins?
> Don’t you think it’s time to give your story?
I am afraid that's completely irrelevant to my comments here. If you read my posts carefully, you'll notice that I haven't said a single negative thing about htmx itself, because I want to very cautious in giving opinions. Everything I said was specifically about the horrible arguments in this article.
Here's the most complex app I've made with it. The most complex part of the app is the match page. I just use morphdom for that part of the app and it makes it super easy, I just send the whole main part of the page back and let a dom diff happen.
I find React to be really complex. What normally takes me just some HTML rendered from the back end and some interactivity on the front end can be done in just a few lines of code, but React takes 10s of lines of code for what I can write in a single line of code using vanilla js. The virtual dom causes it to make everything state. I always find it odd that people reach for that as their front end. I could understand something like Svelte, but even that is too complex for my needs. But I'm always writing CRUD apps, so there is some complexity but not that much, React just makes something that was simple, super complex.
Did a quick test, since before this I also used some very ad-heavy p2p solution, and I see similar issues there. Not sure if you're looking for feedback, but these were all issues I considered before settling on a server-based HTMX long-interrupted-polling approach, which if you think about having server + client + realtime-ish features in the context of "just htmx" + tiny LoC is pretty cool (well I think it's pretty cool :D)
In the WebRTC p2p approach, without some sort of sync protocol that validates the state of data:
- the host must be online / already there to join a room; the host leaving the room means everyone gets kicked!
- if you rejoin a room and don't receive updates, you get a partial view of the data
- if you have data connectivity issues, you get a partial view of the data
- you must have a WebRTC capable browser and Internet connection
Having said that, I do still use this off and on and personally the limitations don't bug me too much. Would be a nightmare for more mission-critical software though
Sun's NeWS also allowed something similar - but with a large amount of programmability using PostScript.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/1khv43o/com...
'This technique is known as Server Driven UI and it is used by Uber, AirBnb and several other big players. The idea is to change the UI instantly without submitting a new version. Developer can just add a new entry in JSON, which can map to an existing component (already available in the binary) and then that component gets displayed on the screen.'
If you pitch to your business that you can update the app automatically without an app store submission, they will start salivating, if not foaming at the mouth.
React has a lot going for it. It's simply that I prefer htmx; it feels cleaner to me.
It is otherwise a very simple website, and the framework and its SDKs are much simpler, yet more powerful, than HTMX
Like, even just now, Claude Code with Opus 4-dot-latest, is absolutely convinced you need a bunch of fragile cascading Javascript listeners to dismiss a lower-level menu in case a dialog is opened, while the Unpoly docs, correctly and clearly, point out that 'shatter' exists for just that purpose.
And this is one of the use cases that I continue to highlight as the achilles heel of LLMs. I'm not holding it wrong: they're not reading it right.
- No JSON serialization: HTMX sends form data natively no JSON.stringify() needed - Less JavaScript: Declarative hx-* attributes replace imperative fetch code. in my world declarative always wins. - Automatic headers: HTMX handles X-User-Id and other headers configured globally - Built-in error handling: hx-on::error instead of .catch() chains - Swapping flexibility: Can show success/error feedback via hx-swap without custom JS - Request indicators: Free loading states with hx-indicator - Debugging: HTMX events visible in browser devtools; fetch requires console.log
and most all: performance. multicardz goes like stink. 100/100 lighthouse scores, First Contentful Paint 0.4 s, Largest Contentful Paint 0.5 s, Total Blocking Time 0 ms, Cumulative Layout Shift 0, Speed Index, 0.5 s
still prerelease, but cautiously hope to go general availability by and of year.
I use pure front end manipulation to set state, then I send the state to the stateless back end with pure functions, and I get amazing performance: www.multicardz.com public test bed, 1M records, round trip usually around 160 ms for anywhere between 1 to 100K hits
- 1 Getting burned out by Nextjs slowness in a complex production project that shouldn't be that complex or slow on the dev side, (this was 2022 approx)
- 2 Taking a break from React
- 3 Moving back to classic server side rendering with python and Go and dealing now with template engines. Hyped with HTMX and loving it, but my conclusion after so many years of react was that template partials don't feel right to me and templates engines are somewhat not maintained and evolved as used to be. I found my self not feeling naturally inclined to reach for the htmx way and just let the coding agent do it the way they wanted AND stating to notice again the burn out.
- 4 Looking with some envy to co-workers using shadcn how fast they are getting things done and how good they look.
- 5 Wondering would be a way to use JSX with HTMX server side, I miss components, I don't want partial templates.
And then I found Astro, ahhh now I get it, Astro prioritizes generation over run time, and that unlocks a lot of gradual complexity where you can choose how to mix things ( islands ) you get something way more interesting than a template engine, and it uses JSX so you can benefit from React ecosystem.
This where I am now, but yet I have to complete a side project with it to know if I fully get it and love it.
So far seems to me is the answer I was looking for.
I can see the value of the "islands" concept when you have a huge front-end that's grown over generations of people working on it.
For my constrained front-end debugging Astro errors on top of React errors on top of whatever all the turtles down felt a like a step too far.
Am I in my Rust centered back-end driven brain missing something?
I'm playing with JSX, Hono, and Bun right now to do just that. It's early but will see how it goes.
Where appropriate, I use an extension that introduces hx-target-error and hx-swap-error, so I can put the message into an element. You can even use the CSS :empty selector to animate the error message as it appears and disappears.
Usually the default behavior, keeping the form as-is, is what you want, so users don’t lose their input and can just retry.
If it exceeds it, I returned 400. I had to add an event listener to check for the code (htmx:afterRequest) and show an alert(), but this gets difficult to manage if there's multiple requests to different endpoints on the page. Looking at it now, maybe I should have configured HTMX to swap for 4xx.
Allow the server to return a modal/toast in the response and, in your frontend, create a "global" listener that listens to `htmx:afterRequest` and check if the response contains a modal/toast. If it does, show the modal/toast. (or, if you want to keep it simple, show the content in an alert just like you already do)
This way you create a generic solution that you can also reuse for other endpoints too, instead of requiring to create a custom event listener on the client for each endpoint that may require special handling.
If you are on htmx's Discord server, I talked more about it on this message: https://discord.com/channels/725789699527933952/909436816388...
At the time I used headers to indicate if the body should be processed as a trigger, due to nginx header size limits and header compression limitations. Nowadays what I would do is serialize the toast/modal as a JSON inside the HTML response itself then, on `htmx:afterRequest`, parse any modals/toasts on the response and display them to the user.
If you hang on to "possible states of the UI" that are client-side only then yes you'll have some difficulty implementing server-generated HTMX responses but more importantly, when your client has state that sometimes isn't in sync with, or shared with, or validated by your server, you're setting yourself up for errors and bugs that will exist regardless of framework.
In short, HTMX forces you to apply "single source of truth" concepts to your application.
Unless you’re saying the components returned by HTMX are using the shadow dom for isolation, you can very easily run into styling problems by changing a style and not realizing some injected fragment of HTML somewhere relies on it being a certain way. I hope you’re using a monorepo because unlike typescript APIs, those HTML fragments and CSS styles are not type checked.
document.addEventListener('htmx:configRequest', evt => {
evt.detail.headers['Accept-Version'] = APP_VERSION;
});
Every backend framework, be it dotnet or Symphony or Rails, has a concept of components. It's a non-issue.
There are so many gains by not using a frontend. You've greatly reduced your site size, removed duplicated logic, a shitload of JS dependencies, and an unnecessary build step.
The "header frontend / body backend" split is a choice, not a requirement. I wouldn't make that choice.
I mention it because that's the first example on the official website, so I'd assume this is the right way.
The JS framework is the frontend, so you're still coordinating.
> If its returning HTML that's intended to go in a particular place on a page, the front-end has far less flexibility and pretty much has to put it in a specific place.
Well yes, because presumably that's what the app is supposed to do. If it's not supposed to put it in that place, why would that be the specified target?
If this kind of static assignment of targets is not flexible enough for some reason, then use OOB updates which lets you replace fragments by id attribute. That lets you decouple some of these kinds of decisions.
Although "endpoints can return 3-5 different versions of HTML" is also a bit of a red flag that you're not using htmx correctly, generally endpoints should be returning 1, maybe 2 fragments in unusual cases.
In any case, you might find DataStar more to your liking, it's partway between React and htmx.
A single, consistent, canonical response, generated by the server, taking into account all relevant state (which is stored on the server) is much cleaner. It's deterministic and therefore much more testable, predictable and easier to debug.
For pure UI-only logic (light/dark mode, etc) sure you can handle that entirely client-side, but my comment above applies to anything that reads or writes persistent data.
I kind of don't get why if you want to display something in a web browser you'd generate anything other than HTML.
The only exposure the back-end has to HTML is streaming the static files to the browser. Which can be done in small chunks.
If your back-end is rendering HTML with every request, it has to do a lot more work. It has to load HTML templates into memory and insert strings into them.
For a good part of your career this is true, but eventually you will need to justify your senior salary by being able to debug react via looking at library code itself, or understanding the event bubbling under the hood, or figure out why the output css isn't working.
Saw a video, wish I could remember who, someone developing a game in c-something. There was some bug they couldn't figure out so they jumped into I guess the assembly for that block of higher abstracted code, and was able to find some kind of memory issue. Vague, sorry, but point is I remember being really impressed, thinking oh shit yeah if I really want to be an expert in my field I better be able to really understand my stack all the way to the bones.
That's not a valid analogy, 99.99% of C# developers never see or touch CLR bytecode, where every React developer is still working with HTML+CSS.
In theory, react developers ought to be able to code against the react API in typescript, without seeing the "raw" HTML+JS that gets delivered to the browser.
So what's failing those developers? Is it the tooling, the abstraction itself, or something else?
You're failing to understand the difference between react and react-dom.
> be able to code against the react API in typescript
Probably helps a lot to keep abstractions from leaking.
No, there's two states here: the frontend state, and the backend state.
The name example is trivial, but in real applications, your state is complex and diverges. You need to constantly sync it, constantly validate it, and you need to do that forever. Most of your bugs will be here. The frontend will say the name is name, but actually it's new_name. How do you do fix that? Query the backend every so often? Maybe have the backend send push updates over a websocket? These are hard problems.
Ultimately, there is only one "true" state, the backend state, but this isn't the state your users see. You can see this in every web app today, even multi-billion dollars ones. I put in some search criteria, maybe a check a few boxes. Refresh? All gone. 90% of the time I'm not even on the same page. Push the back button? Your guess is as good as mine where I go. The backend thinks I'm one place, but the frontend clearly disagrees.
SSR was so simple because it FORCES the sync points. It makes them explicit and unavoidable. With a SPA, YOU have to make the sync points. And keep them in sync and perfect forever. Otherwise your app will just be buggy, and they usually are.
I fail to see how HTMX helps. I fail to see how SSR necessarily helps too. You could be serving a page for an order that's been cancelled by the time the user sees it.
> I put in some search criteria, maybe a check a few boxes. Refresh? All gone
You could see that 20 years ago too, unless you manually stored the state of the form somewhere. Again, what does it have to do with HTMX, or Rect, or SSR?
For your name example, you could use hx-swap-oob to update multiple elements. However if you're submitting a form element, I would just re-render the page.
See, that's my point - it's NOT manual, it's explicit. There's a difference. A form submission and page refresh is just that. It's very clear WHEN the sync happens and WHAT we are syncing.
With a SPA, you throw that all away and you have to do it yourself. And it's almost always done poorly and inconsistently.
Just change that example to just return the entire table element on /search. You could even add/remove columns with a single route response change, vs the multiple changes required to sync the front/backend with a JS framework.
At least some of what you may not be getting in this space is how many developers right now seem to be hugely deprioritizing or just dropping SPA from their decision trees lately. Recent advances in CSS and ESM and Web Components such as View Transitions and vanilla/small-framework JS (ESM) tree-shaking/"unbundling"/importmaps give MPAs more of the benefits of a complex SPA with fewer of the downsides (less of a "mandatory" build process, smaller initial bundle load). It is easy to feel less of a need for "complex SPA" to be on your architecture options board.
You’re either doing something wrong or not actually doing a hello world.
Because most webpages don't need to be SPAs. I miss the days of jquery and html+css, where everything was snappy, and wasn't an SPA.
And I’m not saying every site needs to be an SPA. I’m saying if I can write everything from a simple site to an SPA in a single framework then why not use that for everything?
Use the right tool for the job, instead of using the one tool you are comfortable with for everything.
Similar to wvbdmp's approach but without needing the extension
via 3 different rendering logic, (such as JSX templates) same as the server
> if you hide the complexity under the bed!
which is what you just did by dismissing the reality that client-side requires the same 3 renderers that server-side requires! (plus serialization and deserialization logic - not a big deal with your simple example but can be a major bottleneck with complex, nested, native objects)
In a classic app, there's one entity that keeps the state (the server), and one entity that keeps how it is rendered. This is very easy to reason about, and the contract is very clear. If I want to understand what happens, then I can open my frontend app and see "Hello <b>{{name}}</b>".
In HTMX, the logic is spread. What I see is a construct that says "Replace this with the mystery meat from the backend, whatever that is".
Assume there's a styling issue. The name looks too big. Is it because the frontend is adding a style that cascades, or is it because the backend returns markup with a class? Now any issue has an extra level of indirection, because you've spread your rendering logic into two places.
> which is what you just did by dismissing the reality that client-side requires the same 3 renderers that server-side requires!
But what's complex isn't the number of renderers, it's where the logic happens. The HTMX website is full of examples where the header of a table is rendered in the frontend, and the body is rendered in the backend. How's that considered sane when changing the order of the columns turns into a real ordeal?
> In HTMX, the logic is spread
I disagree... with React, by definition, the logic is spread. Persistent data, and usually, business logic, is in some data store accessible via the app backend. And then a totally different entity, the front-end, renders that data (often implementing additional business logic) and manages state (which is often not yet recorded in the data store until various updates can be performed).
HTMX helps keep everything aligned. All the rendering logic is right there along with the data and the business logic. If I'm looking for a renderer, not only is it easy to find the template that produced "Hello <b>{{name}}</b>" but it is also easy to find the source of {{name}}. Which also makes it easy to alter {{name}}, say, from Smith, John to Mr. John Smith - because the data store and business logic are right there, it is low effort to switch the order and to begin including the salutation.
Your "front-end" is still all in one place, except it's on the server, and typically rendered via templates instead of React components. But the templates can often access native objects (including their properties and functions) instead of solely relying on JSON objects.
This comment is already long but regarding data tables... yea, highly dynamic pure data-based UI's such as charts and tables aren't HTMX's forte. But even then there are ways... the data- attribute is very useful, and since you are already using JS to handle sorting, filtering, re-ordering, showing tooltips, etc, it's very possible to render valid HTML fragments that can be properly rendered via that same JS (or contain data which can be).
any factoring you do on the front end you can do on the back end too, there's nothing magic about it and you don't need different end points: that can be a query parameter or whatever (if it's even a request, in most hypermedia-based apps you'd just render what you need when you need it inline with a larger request)
it's a different way of organizing things, but there are plenty of tools for organizing hypermedia on the server well, you just need to learn and use them
The main problem is that this is extremely, extremely expensive in practice. You end up in Big Webapp hell where you're returning 4mb of data to display a 10 byte string on the top right of the screen with the user's name. And then you need to do this for ALL objects.
What happens if a very simple page needs tiny bits of data from numerous objects? It's slow as all hell, and now your page takes 10 seconds to load on mobile. If you just rendered it server-side, all the data is in reach and you just... use what you need.
And that's not even taking into account the complexity. Everything becomes much more complex because the backend returns everything. You need X + 1, but you have to deal with X + 1,000.
And then simple optimization techniques just fall flat on their face, too. What if we want to do a batch update? Tsk tsk, that's not RESTful. No, instead send out 100 requests.
What about long running tasks? Maybe report generation? Tsk tsk, that's not RESTful. No, generate the report on the frontend using a bajillion different objects from god knows where across the backend. Does it even make sense with the state and constraints of the data? Probably not, that's done at a DB level and you're just throwing all that away to return JSON.
I mean, consider such a simple problem. I have a User object, the user has a key which identifies their orders, and each order has a key which identifies the products in that order. Backend-driven? Just throw that in HTML, boom, 100 lines of code.
RESTful design? First query for the User object. Then, extract their orders. Then, query for the order object. For each of those, query for their products. Now, reconstruct the relationship on the frontend, being careful to match the semantics of the data. If you don't, then your frontend is lying and you will try to persist something you can't, or display things in a way they aren't stored.
The backend went from one query to multiple endpoints, multiple queries, and 10x the amount of code. The frontend ballooned, too, and we're now essentially doing poor man's SQL in JS. But does the frontend team gets the bliss of not dealing with the backend? No, actually - because they need to check the database and backend code to make sure their semantics match the real application semantics.
You went on a long tirade against REST, which nobody mentioned. Just ... write an endpoint returning the data you need, as JSON? But write it once, instead of once per view variant?
> Just throw that in HTML, boom, 100 lines of code.
Now you need the exact same data but displayed differently. Boom, another 100 lines of code? Multiply by the number of times you need that same data? Boom indeed, it just blew up.
It isn't 2004 anymore - all of the server-side frameworks have components.
Except, now instead of using serialization and JSON, it's a real API. In code. I can click and go to definition.
> Just ... write an endpoint returning the data you need, as JSON? But write it once, instead of once per view variant?
What you just said directly contradicts itself.
If each view variant needs slightly different data, or ordering, or whatever, we now need to make N APIs. Or we don't. And now we're back at square one and everything I said is valid.
The more modular and reusable your API is, the less performant it will be and the more bugs it will introduce. I'm all for the God API that has 1 million endpoints each doing one specific thing. But it seems nobody else is, so instead we get the fucked ass RESTful APIs that are so bad and lead to such overly complex code were pushed to write critical CVEs to avoid them (looking at you, NEXT)
Just raw structs of data? Or do you turn that back into HTML?
Now you've got two sets of templates to cope with...
Why would I care about how much effort it is for the server to generate? It's already generating HTML from templates, and it's more-or-less infinitely capable of doing so.
In practice, I doubt this is much slower than serializing JSON. Keeping a couple kilobytes of HTML templates in memory is nothing. Conversely, running a whole vdom on the frontend (typically more resource-constrained than the server) is a much bigger performance issue.
So how do we still get a fancy SPA website? Build it all down to a simple zip bundle, the ARM can serve those static files just fine. The SPA talks to the ARM via a few JSON APIs. Very nice clean boundary.
This isn't a controversial idea and nobody would try to sell you on HTMX for your use case.
Why can't your code fill in the blanks in some HTML template instead of filling in the blanks in some JSON?
Why are you then offloading rendering HTML from JSON to a painfully slow scripting language on the client?
(In all seriousness, this entire article is facetious and is highlighting the strengths of HTMX. They are not sincerely advocating for 'resume driven development'.)
And the frameworks are churned continuously and are also bug-ridden nightmares, so that continuous development and support is needed to keep websites functioning and secure.
Any reduction in framework complexity threatens the whole edifice.
- How easy is it to hire people with experience in this?
- Relatedly, how easy will it be for the org to maintain this software after I (or the original team) leaves?
When NoRedInk switched to Elm, Richard Feldman, who was asked about whether this impacted their hiring experience in any negative way, said that on the contrary, hiring had never been better, because although the pool of candidates grew smaller, their quality (either prior experience of working with type-safe functional programming languages, or enthusiasm for learning them) got higher.
When Alex Russell announced several openings at Microsoft for development of design systems with web components, and certainly no react, he said this attracted a lot of really strong candidates.
I am not saying that a good web developer should be able to pick up any exotic language, such as elm, or purescript, or rescript, or clojurescript at no time; but what I am saying is that as far as web frameworks are concerned, they shouldn't be a criterion for hiring, and are unlikely to become an obstacle to it.
Pretend this is not about library choice, but rather about language choice. One language has 2 jobs, and the other language 13k jobs. I doubt you'd think for more than a second.
Survival is more important.
On the other hand htmx is nice to have, if it solves your problem. Still you should use what benefits you in the context of a customer.
If you ask me, I think the web is for viewing static content, download content, or share links that your browser should delegate to an app.
Reality is often disappointing. I'd love to be working deep in my Vulkan rendering knowledge, but it's clear right now with my lack of job that I need to grind leetcode instead and work on personal projects first. Graphics programming is already such a stiff bar to get into and it's only gotten stiffer as I go along.
I'm going a little bit on a limb by also cultivating Rust, so I'm not optimizing my RDD. But I still looked for a compromise of what I like and what's in demand.
The Hacker News website runs on Lisp. How many jobs do you see on the market that ask for Lisp? And yet, for what it is, this site is amazing! I don't see them rushing to migrate to a python backend and a react-based frontend, no matter how many jobs there are for those.
In other words, HN does not have the problem that you are going to have if you use an unpopular language for your project.
If you choose LISP for your not-HN project, then you have a problem. The chances are very slim of finding any experienced LISP devs who are also in your salary range, within commute distance, want to work on your project, are a good fit for the team, etc.
You're probably going to have to hire a dev who is a good match on all those other things and train them up on LISP. Unless they've had experience with other functional languages (not that unusual, but not common either) then they're going to have to learn an entire new paradigm. All of which means that they'll spend the first six months going slow while they learn, and needing support from the rest of the team.
And you'll need to convince them to join you (probably by paying them more money) because if they spend a few years on your project learning LISP, they probably won't be able to use those skills for their next gig, and their current skills in a popular language will go out of date.
LISP is a great language, and if used well it will probably give you an advantage over the competition using other, more mundane, languages. But is that going to be enough of an advantage to counteract your slower onboarding, higher salaries, and greater recruitment workload?
You mean the message board? The website that has a grand total of 2 functions: post and comment?
> And yet, for what it is, this site is amazing!
It's 2 colors and text. That's it.
> ! I don't see them rushing to migrate to a python backend and a react-based frontend, no matter how many jobs there are for those.
It's A MESSAGE BOARD. A. MESSAGE. BOARD.
The other language - HTML - has over 30,000 jobs
I feel like only a backend developer trying to score "gotcha" points could make this argument and be confident about it.
2. Who has a server with a weak, limited processor? HTML templates power Django, Rails, and PHP. This paradigm worked fine on the servers of 20 years ago, in the slowest languages we use. I could serve a Django app on my phone and see reasonable performance.
Read the OP's posts - he is talking about a "server" being an embedded device with 64mb of read-only storage. My assumption is that the data output format is basically hard-coded in the device's OS and doesn't even rely on JSON serialization.
> Three levels down and people have entirely forgotten what my post was.
I missed this reply entirely. Whoops.
That said, I do feel like you can do HTML templates on a tiny chip with 64 megs of memory. I've seen NASes with comparably tiny & terrible chips serve their web UIs this way: paper-thin html templates with <form>s for interactivity and <table>s for layout.
You mean a real developer?
Have you seen how many blog or portfolio sites people build with react? Sometimes even adding nextjs into the mix? Blogs!
What is this an objection to? If you follow this thread upwards, where was it suggested that we should be talking about things so complex that nobody, or only very few, could build? The whole pitch of htmx is that it is proposed for building things that anybody could build. The article in the title assumes that the target audience isn't building Google Docs, Figma, video editors, or CAD tools.
It's a list of articles and comments. It would take like 3 pages from W3Schools to build this thing.
Firstly, because this site happily handles the amount of traffic that puts many hobbyist sites that happen to get on its front page into a hug of death; so its developers must have done something right on the backend that is probably above the web programming 101 level.
But secondly, because this was precisely my point. One does not need a super popular front-end framework to make an awesome web product, and the HackerNews site is a testament to that.
No you're not. You're just trying to respond with something witty.
It's a message board with 1% of the functionality most sites people are building with frameworks.
> Firstly, because this site happily handles the amount of traffic that puts many hobbyist sites that happen to get on its front page into a hug of death;
Lol are you really implying it's hard to scale a message board?
> One does not need a super popular front-end framework to make an awesome web product, and the HackerNews site is a testament to that.
IT'S A MESSAGE BOARD. Nobody is building message boards anymore. Using HN as an example for anything other than building a dirt simple message boardsays more about your refusal to recognize the need to these new technologies than it does about those technologies.
> awesome web product
A. Message. Board.
You draw a simple web page with very basic elements, tag them with an HTMX element, and let the client side javascript turn that into something that "does stuff".
I wrote a phone directory with find-as-you-type using Django (because it's what I had lying around) and HTMX (because I read somewhere that it was cool and fun and I should try it, and I bow easily to peer pressure), and then min.css to make it not look shit.
All totally vendored, just download the appropriate .js and .css file and check them into your source control.
When you type it hits an endpoint that returns a bit of HTML that contains a table, and swaps it into a div. The querying part and the drawing part is client-side and there's nothing stopping you passing a query string to the endpoint and getting just a bare table out.
Indeed there's nothing stopping you detecting if it's an HTMX request and only returning the fragment, or if it's "bare" returning a full valid page. You know what? I should do that, I'll log a feature request on my project for it.
I've gotten a little away from the original point.
You use HTMX on the client side, to turn a plain HTML page with no interactivity into something that will pull data from a backend and swap it into the DOM. If you want to return JSON and render that with yet another library you can, but you're probably already filling in the blanks in an HTML template as it is.
I am implying that it is beyond the "3 pages from W3Schools", as you put it.
> A. Message. Board.
Yes. A fast, reliable, accessible message board that I and many others thoroughly enjoy. An awesome product.
Again, I have never suggested that its ui is complex. In fact, it's glorious how simple it is. This is the point that those htmx people make: use simple tools for simple UIs; and also, try to make your UIs simple.
NO. IT. ISN'T.
lol. Anytime React is mentioned people like you rush in to tell others just how great stuff like...checks notes...a message board is. As if it in any, way, shape or form adds to the conversation.
You just couldn['t help yourself from rushing in to defend the simplest site on the planet (lol written in LISP) as if it demonstrates anything other than some rando building a w3 schools site in a language no one uses anymore.
This 'simplest site on the planet' does the job that it is tasked to do. Brilliantly. I am baffled by why you would scorn at simplicity.
> as if it demonstrates anything
It demonstrates that a great product (a product that many people use and love) can be built with simple tools. At least on the frontend.
> How many jobs do you see on the market that ask for Lisp? And yet, for what it is, this site is amazing! I don't see them rushing to migrate to a python backend and a react-based frontend, no matter how many jobs there are for those.
You pointing out that the dumb simple message board is written in LISP and doesn't need anymore more is a bit absurd.
No shit they aren't rushing to upgrade it. IT BARELY DOES ANYTHING TO BEGIN WITH.
Anytime a certain class of developer see the word "React" that end up saying the most ridiculous shit. Nobody, I mean nobody, thinks HN is a site worthy of replicating or achieving unless they're part of the .0000002% who couldn't find a prepackaged board from Google search results.
Wait what? You haven't seen all the hackernews clones that people make as an exercise of website building? You haven't seen lobste.rs?
All of those hacker news clones are by Hacker News people for Hacker News people, usually to implement features Hacker News never will.
Nobody outside of the HN community is holding up Hacker News as an exemplar of superior design or engineering, much less of a Lisp implementation. Anyone who's touched the Arc Lisp forum code knows how few fucks pg gave about the design of anything but the language itself. And still the original forum was so inefficient it would keel over and die under moderate traffic and internal links would time out and people's comments would just never post.