Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by aylmao 2165 days ago
> For me, the most interesting aspect was that it's part of standards, requiring no dependency, so it means that I can use this app for decades without having to maintain it.

I mean, you can also do that with React. Just don't update the library. The reason a web-component for decades without maintenance is because you won't be using all the new features— same thing.
1 comments
georges_gomes 2165 days ago
I think the difference is that when you design a full React app, everything sit on the same "React base". If you want to move to upgrade to a new React version everything needs to upgrade. And if you need to migrate to Vue or Ember or Svelte... everything needs to migrate (or move to some sort of microfrontend strategy. But given the javascript cost of some of these frameworks, it's not cheap to go this route).

Web Components have a longer life span as they can be used in another app or another version with another technology without been migrated. Makes more sense for expensive component that have been battle tested. You don't want to rewrite them.

link
aylmao 2165 days ago
React is built to interop with "general" JavaScript, so in theory you can use it with other rendering frameworks. I used React and D3 all the time.

Performance-wise, it IS better to stick to a single framework, so I see what you mean. Web components being implemented in the browser do mean the user doesn't have to download any more JS.

link