[troupo]

> as far as I understand it was always an experimental project for the then very young technology of Web Components

So experimental that Google even had a Polymer Conference and was promoting it heavily, like it promotes lit now.

> because Lit doesn't want to be a opinionated framework

For a "non-opinionated" framework it sure does have a lot of opinions: custom DSL, custom directives, custom decorators, custom way of building elements...

[gitaarik]

Well, any popular framework has all these things, and most frameworks have a lot more. Lit is really the littlest amount of tools you would want. With less than that, you can just as well directly use the web component APIs, and not use a framework / library at all. I don't know what you imagine would be a less opinionated way without having to chip in on usability.

[troupo]

> Lit is really the littlest amount of tools you would want.

- reactivity. Specific to lit

- declarative templates. Specific to lit

- SSR. Specific to lit.

- context. Specific to lit.

- tasks. Specific to lit

- directives. Specific to lit

"littlest amount of tools"

[gitaarik]

SSR, context and tasks are all separate packages, not in the Lit core package. The others are very basic functionalily for what you expect from a framework like Lit. It has to do something ultimately :D

[troupo]

> SSR, context and tasks are all separate packages, not in the Lit core package.

Splitting hairs

> The others are very basic functionalily for what you expect from a framework like Lit.

Indeed. Framework like Lit. These mental hoops and shenaningans lit defenders have to jump and go through to pretend lit is somehow not a framework and somehow different.

Literally the very first example you get on lit's own page show how invalid all those claims are: https://lit.dev/docs/components/overview/