[eyelidlessness]

Is this condescension really necessary? I don’t think it helps the discussion generally, but particularly from authors of libraries in a similar space with a different approach. Lots of others in the space, many whose work would likely get a similar reaction, are quite welcoming to competing approaches and even speak highly of them.

That said, I think you might want to consider looking more closely at how Qwik works. It produces markup metadata that’s not dissimilar to what I see in htmx. I don’t know if it’s a direct inspiration, but that similarity seems particularly odd to dismiss so bluntly.

The major philosophical difference between the two is the authoring experience: Qwik annotates the HTML with a compiler, in htmx it appears the expectation is you write the annotations directly. Qwik’s server side templates just happen to be authored as JSX components. Both are completely valid! Probably more a matter of preference than anything.

Personally, I prefer the Qwik approach. But I welcome yours as well and encourage people who would prefer it to choose it. Both are significantly better, in many cases, for users than the current outcomes from many other frameworks which appeal to the devs Qwik is targeting. Isn’t that also welcome given the state of web dev today?

[recursivedoubts]

that's fair, I was being too sardonic

i've spent a bit of time today looking into qwik and I appreciate what they are trying to do

not my bag, but i'm obviously a contrarian in the web world

[eyelidlessness]

Hey, thank you for this response though! It’s much more what I like/hope to see in the ecosystem. Also I’m an old curmudgeon so I relate, and sometimes need a nudge to turn the contrarian knob down to friendly :)