joystick

This is rad, Damien. Great work. Can you send an email to ryan.glover@cheatcode.co (didn't see anything listed on the site)? Want to discuss how I could make this work with Joystick [1]. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

If you want a similar experience in JS check out Joystick [1]. It's being built to mimic the indefinitely stable design of stuff like Django and Rails. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

> It's insane how much of the world's engineering effort and technology investment money has gone into putting lipstick on a pig. I'm a JavaScript developer and yes, this is deeply disturbing. Even more so after I built a framework [1] that just copycats what PHP/Rails does (treat the server like a server, and the client/browser like a client—no SPA spaghetti). It works, it's fast, and makes development 100x easier. I applied the same heuristic to deployments, eschewing all of the containers dogma and lo and behold, you can achieve great performance (and iterative speed) with old school, minimal tech (bare metal/VPS and just install deps and code directly on the machine). [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

There is. I was frustrated by all of the chaos and built a solution [1]. Not too far off from an RC1 and then a 1.0 (which is being done slowly so I can freeze APIs and avoid the typical JS rug pulls). [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

*Shameless self promotion warning*. If you're looking for a middle-ground between React and Web Components, check out Joystick [1]. I designed it to take a React v1 approach to ergonomics but you write your components with vanilla HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (no attribute hacks or new syntax to learn—if it's on MDN, it will work in Joystick). [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

I was excited for web components, but the API was lacking (the final tipping point that led me to build Joystick [1]). I just couldn't get on board with a web-standard that eschewed HTML in favor of stuff like this [2] where list items are attributes. The hyphenated namespace thing has always made my eye twitch, too (silly, I know). [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick [2] https://github.com/mdn/web-components-examples/blob/main/edi...

They are, but in practice there's little difference in the ends because you're getting the same feedback (did I pass the right type, yes or no). Like calling someone on a cell phone vs. a land line. If the type of data you're passing around is erratic beyond development (where, just like TypeScript, a function-based approach illuminates incorrect data being passed around), you're writing bad code and TypeScript is nothing more than a crutch. I expect most hardline TypeScript people to disagree, but type errors are the least of my concerns thanks to the above approach. It's not just an opinion; it's based on experience/evidence [1]. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

I don't want to bag on Htmx but if you're looking to just use vanilla HTML (seriously, no extra/custom attributes or weird syntax gotchas), please check out Joystick [1]. UI framework that's part of a full-stack framework that uses vanilla HTML, CSS, and JavaScript for building components. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

There's another, often ignored differential factor for frameworks and that is ergonomics. All of the frameworks here require specific domain knowledge to pick up and understand. That knowledge typically involves confusing concepts (Svelte and Vue aren't too bad here) that waste a ton of developer time just to wrap their head around [1]. When I look at Angular, it feels like one of those contortionist boxes at a magic show. This is why I ended up building Joystick [2]. The amount of time I was wasting trying to reason through how a framework wanted me to do something vs. actually building what I wanted was driving me nuts (not to mention, having to watch people I was mentoring who had less experience struggle even more). [1] Meaning, beyond a trivial interface, any sort of complex UI is often (not always) burdened by the framework's lack o

> The mind bending parts of this presentation are where he first utilizes use server to implement a client side form action, and then later launches a client side alert from the server using use client. And he closes by saying that this requires new generation routers and new generation bundlers. No, it just requires a basic websockets implementation and a normal HTTP server. If anyone else like me loves JavaScript but thinks the above line of thinking is bananas, join me on the lifeboat [1]. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

I've been (slowly) writing a new type of OSS license around this exact concept so it's easier to (legally) stop LLMs hoovering up IP [1] (under "derivative works not permitted"). [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick/blob/development/LICEN...

Or: just use plain HTML [1] and keep separation of concerns intact. In a quote: > "So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things." - Ryan Singer (Basecamp/37Signals) [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick

> IMO if you need a long doc like this pointing out the sharp edges, then I think you've done a poor job in designing the framework. Thank you. It's self-serving (mea culpa), but this is the exact reason I moved away from React and decided to build Joystick [1]. [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick