Hacker News Reader

The JSX seems compelling. You are already doing a non-standard HTML embedding HTML into javascript, why not do it better? https://civet.dev/reference#jsx

I am not convinced that all the syntax nicety is necessary, but improved pattern matching is often a great thing. On the other hand their examples seem to be to pattern match on highly dynamic types, which you can avoid 95% of the time with TypeScript.

View on HN

JSX has a spec. This thing they're doing... I don't know what it is, but it ain't JSX.

The JSX spec hasn't changed for almost 10 years, and I'd guess there will never be a JSX 2.0. On the other hand, ideas for a better JSX are plentiful (check out the issues on the JSX repo, for example). If the spec never changes, how can we improve the JSX experience? Transpilation!

Civet's futuristic JSX compiles to actual spec-compliant JSX, to it's compatible with all forms of JSX, including React, Solid, etc. We'd like to support other DSLs like Astro and Svelte as well.

Not so sure. JSX is already a transpilation language. Why target a language that's only supported as an input language for other compilers? I don't think this is an LLVM-type scenario.

As an example, Solid's JSX compiler changes multiple times in a year. It's better to target JSX than the compiled form. There are also many JSX compilers. (Even React ships with at least two.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com