[TylerE]

How would you feel if the first example in, say, a ruby tutorial, was how to redefine the ‘+’ operator to use a different symbol?

It’s somewhere between pointless and confusing to me, and isn’t illustrative of why one would want to use components, or what a competent even is.

[MrJohz]

Interestingly, the second example on the official Ruby "About" page is almost exactly that: it defines .plus to be an alias of .+, and demonstrates how it might be used.

https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/

As a web developer (and therefore, I imagine, part of the target demographic for this sort of tool), I personally find this component example very useful. Components are very powerful, but most existing Python templating languages make it difficult or overly verbose to use them to their full extent. This is a really good demonstration of how I can write simple presentational components and use them with server-rendered HTMX. That shows off one of the main things I would want to do with this sort of framework.

So from that perspective, this is very much the perfect sort of example.

[TylerE]

That's a totally different presentation though. The ludic home page never mentions that there is an existing function/data type! It just goes straight into the definition of Link without giving any context to someone who doesn't know what htmx is. There is nothing to tell a naive reader that this isn't how you'd do this in a production app.

[rrr_oh_man]

I see where you’re coming from. What you are describing is the exact feeling I’m getting whenever I’m reading the man pages of older R packages.

But this might also mean that one is not the target audience in this case…

[paveldedik]

Thank you for the feedback, I need to improve the home page a lot. I thought I should make it as brief as possible so that people don't need to read long essays to quickly understand what it is about. But at the same time, presenting all the necessary information in a short text seems hard.