| > JSX would be a non-starter without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring, and webpack/babel to do the compilation. and then you immediately go on to say this: > tagged templates could reach at least the same level of DX as JSX if the community invested the resources to make that better. So, tagged templates are also non-starters without IDEs helping autocomplete, linting/format, syntax coloring. > i'm not saying it's the right solution for a standard, but it would be way better than jsx, since tagged templates are already a standard. They are strings. There's no magic in tagged templates that somehow make them immediately better for some custom non-standard syntax compared to JSX. You can't just plop a string containing lit's custom non-standard syntax into an IDE (or a browser) and expect it to just work because "it's tagged templates are standard". For the purpose of templating in the browser there's literally no difference between standardizing a custom syntax based with JSX or tagged templates. |
they're marginally better since they have a platform-defined way to deliniate static from dynamic parts. ivi _can_ work without a runtime or build-time JS parser, while JSX cannot (because jsx has to be parsed out of full blobs of js)
on the dx/ide side, sure there's not a huge amount of difference if both had the same effort invested.