Hacker News Reader

I prototyped this exact thing by parsing the DOM, building corresponding UIKit elements and styling them via CSS.

My output looked exactly like an embedded WebKit UIView though - so then the problem became - what was I making that was appreciably better?

That was exactly my question. It’s not like HTML + CSS / DOM is actually a good model for this domain. It’s just what we’ve been stuck with.

>If this works we'll be able to bring the development ergonomics of the Web to every native platform that has a composable UI framework.

Holy this will be much bigger than I thought! Cant wait to see it out.

> If this works we'll be able to bring the development ergonomics of the Web to every native platform that has a composable UI framework.

You appear to be saying this with a straight face. I must be missing something here. What is beneficial about the web model that native is lacking?

I hope I’m not being an old curmudgeon, but I’m genuinely confused here. To me, web dev is a lovecraftian horror and I’m thankful everyday I don’t have to deal with that.

Native dev is needlessly fragmented and I’ve longed for a simple (not Qt) framework for doing cross platform native app dev with actual native widgets, so thanks for working on that. But I a bit mystified at the idea of making it purposefully like web dev.

Distribution. No need to install anything, or have any kind of AppStore.

I meant the dev stack. JS + nom + DOM + markup etc.

Sounds like things are converging more or less where I thought they would: "websites" turning into live applications, interfacing with the native UI, frameworks, etc. using a standardized API. Mainframes maybe weren't the worst idea, as this sort of sounds like a modern re-imagining of them.

The writing was more or less on the wall with WASM. I don't know if this project is really The Answer that will solve all of the problems but it sounds like a step in that direction and I like it a lot, despite using neither Swift nor Erlang.

Would this be like XAML?

Didn’t Firefox build its UI in XAML long ago?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Application_Marku...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8730903

XAML will be a target as we intend to build a WinUI3 client. Of the big three native targets: Apple, Android, Windows the later may be the easiest as from what I've seen nearly everything is in the template already

woah so this is like a react-native/expo done in a sane way ???? with swift?

damn

Firefox used XUL, not XAML. Still does, for some things that are not available in HTML. (By the way, you can enable devtools for the browser UI itself and take a look!)

It's going to be really hard to resist the urge to put a programming language in there. It always starts innocent: 'let's do some validation'. Before you know it you're Turing complete.

I believe swiftUI doesn't give access to the UI tree elements unlike UIkit. So I assume you're not allowing the use of the xml-like code to be in control of the UI? It's rather just an alternative to write swiftUI code? How do you handle state? Isomorphically to what is available in swiftUI? Is your VDOM an alternate syntax for an (Abstract) Syntax tree in fact? Is it to be used as an IR used to write swiftUI code differently?

How is it different from Lynx? React Native? (probably is, besides the xml like syntax, again state management?)

Quite interesting !

That's correct, but we can make changes to the views at runtime and these merge into the SwiftUI viewtree. That part has been working for years. As far as how we take the document and convert to SwiftUI views, there is no reflection in Swift or runtime eval. The solution is pretty simple: dictionary. We just have the tag name of an element mapped to the View struct. Same with modifiers.

As far as how it is different from React Native. That's a good question, one that I think is worth recognizing the irony which is that, as I understand it, without React Native our project probably wouldn't exist. From what I understand RN proved that composable UI was the desired UX even on native. Prior to RN we had UIKit and whatever Android had. RN came along and now we have SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose, both composable UI frameworks. We can represent any composable UI frameworks as a markup, not so much with the prior UI frameworks on native, at least not without defining our own abstraction above them.

As far as the differentiator: backend. If you're sold on client-side development then I don't think our solution is for you. If however you value SSR and want a balnance between front end and backend that's our market. So for a Hotwire app you could have a Rails app deployed that can accept a "ACCEPT application/swiftui" and we can send the proper template to the client. Just like the browser we parse and build the DOM and insantiate the Views in the native client. There are already countless examples of SSR native apps in the AppStore. As long as we aren't shipping code it's OK, which we're not. Just markup that represents UI state. The state would be managed on the server.

Another areas we differ is that we target the native UI framework, we don't have a unified UI framework. So you will need to know HTML - web, SwiftUI - iOS, Jetpack Compose - Android. This is necessary to establish the primitives that we can hopefully get to the point to build on top of to create a unified UI framework (or maybe someone solves that for us?)

With our wasm compilation, we may even be able to compile React itself and have it emit native templates. No idea if that would work or not. The limits come when the JS library itself is enforcing HTML constraints that we don't observe, like case sensitive tag names and attributes.

What about offline mode? Well for use cases that don't require it you're all set. We have lifecycle templates that ship on device for different app states, like being offline. If you want offline we have a concept that we haven't implemented yet. For Elixir we can just ship a version of the LV server on device that works locally then just does a datasync.

Apple allows shipping code over internet for many years now. They just don’t allow dramatically changing the purpose of the app etc

Apple also doesn't allow JITs, and you cannot hot load code to modify the application.

I've heard a blind eye is turned to React Native code changes, as long as it's not something drastic (or outright malicious like Epic).

You can if it's javascript, and this sounds like a bunch of "Server Side UI" type of projects that many large tech companies end up starting.

Or any WASM-target language

You don't need JIT to hot load code. That's irrelevant.

And yes you can hot load code to modify the application. As long as you don't alter the purpose or scope of features under review. There is a specific callout as well that you can dynamically load in "casual games" from a community of contributing creators.

You're repeating outdated nonsense from over a decade ago! Understanding current App Store guidelines can be key for finding competitive edge when there are so many like yourself who scare devs off doing things that Apple now allows.

> We can currently build for nearly all SwiftUI targets: MacOS, iPhone, iPad, Apple Vision Pro, AppleTV. Watch is the odd duck out because it lacks on-device networking that we require for this library.

Could you please elaborate on the statement about Apple Watch? Apple Watch can connect to WiFi directly with Bluetooth off on its paired iPhone. Specific variants also support cellular networks directly without depending on the paired iPhone. So is it something more nuanced than the networking part that’s missing in Apple Watch?

Third party apps can’t use the network though. Iirc there’s an async message queue with eventual delivery that each app gets, which it can use to send messages back and forth with a paired phone app.

That was once the case, but no longer. Third-party WatchOS apps can work without a phone present, up to being installed directly from the watch's app store. They can definitely do independent networking, but there are still some restrictions, eg they can't do it when backgrounded, and websockets are pretty locked down (only for audio-streaming as per Apple policy).

I reckon the lack of general-purpose websockets is probably the issue for a system based on Phoenix LiveView.

watchOS does not support the BSD sockets API [1], so we would need to build a separate backend in Swift using the Network framework.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3135-l...

With how complexity happy webdevs like to get with their DOM structure, would this actually be performant compared to an equivalent webview in practice? Especially since your using SwiftUI which has a lot more performance foot guns compared to UIKit.

Is there somewhere to follow this project? Sounds really interesting

* The working name of the browser is Crane: https://github.com/liveview-native/crane/tree/ios

* our vDOM: https://github.com/liveview-native/gen_dom

* selector parsing: https://github.com/liveview-native/selector

* compile Elixir to ios: https://github.com/otp-interop/elixir_pack

Wow, unreal, thanks! I was playing around with Liveview native awhile back. Will definitely be following this along

How does elixir_pack work? Is it bundling BEAM to run on iOS devices? Does Apple allow that?

Years ago I worked at Xamarin, and our C# compiler compiled C# to native iOS code but there were some features that we could not support on iOS due to Apple's restrictions. Just curious if Apple still has those restrictions or if you're doing something different?

https://github.com/otp-interop/elixir_pack

we compile without the JIT so we can satisfy the AppStore requirements

I haven't been following BeamAsm that closely, because I'm not working in Erlang at work.... But it strikes me that there's not really a reason that the JIT has to run at runtime, although I understand why it is built that way. If performance becomes a big issue, and BeamAsm provides a benefit for your application (it might not!), I think it would be worth trying to figure out how to assemble the beam files into native code you can ship onto restrictive platforms without shipping the JIT assembler.

How does this compare to hyperview? https://hyperview.org/

Not sure as I haven't done any work with it. On a cursory glance it could have some overlap but it appears to not target the 1st class UI frameworks. It looks to be a UI framework unto itself. So more of a Flutter than what we're doing is my very quick guess. We get major benefits from targeting the 1st class UI frameworks, primarily being we let them do the work. Developing a UI native framework I think is way way more effort than what we've done so we let Apple, Google, and Microsoft to decide what the desired user experience is on their devices. And we just allow our composable markup to represent those frameworks. A recent example of this is with the new "glass" iOS 26 UI update. We had our client updated for the iOS 26 beta on day 1 of its release. Flutter has to re-write their entire UI framework if they want to adapt to this experience.

Hyperview creator here. Yes, it sounds like the difference is that your project is directly rendering platform-native UI widgets, while Hyperview is built on top of React Native for the cross-platform layer.

Curious how you will handling the differences between platforms. For example, Android prefers top tab bars, while on iOS the convention is to put tab bars below the content.

This is one of the fundamental differences for what we're doing. We are not building a write-once-run-everywhere solution. SwiftUI will have its own templates, Jetpack (Android) will have its templates, WinUI3 will have its templates.

What's the difference between NativeScript ui and ReactNative ui?

> some difficulties collaborating with the upstream project

Can you elaborate on this?

In what way will this be different from Liveview Native?

We're delivering LVN as I've promised the Elixir community this for years, from LVN's perspective nothing really changes. We hit real issues when trying to support live components and nested liveviews, if you were to look at the liveview.js client code those two features make significant use of the DOM API as they're doing significant tree manipulation. For the duration of this project we've been circling the drain on building a browser and about three months ago I decided that the just had to go all the way.

I hope I'm not reading into this too cynically, but your phrasing makes it sound like the project is not going as well as originally hoped.

It's pretty well-established at this time that cross-platform development frameworks are hard for pretty much any team to accomplish... Is work winding down on the LiveView Native project, or do you expect to see an increase in development?

The LVN Elixir libraries are pretty much done and those really shouldn't change out side of perhaps additional documentation. I have been back and forth on the 2-arity function components that we introduced. I may change that back to 1-arity and move over to annotating the function similar to what function components already support. That 2-arity change was introduced in the current Release Candidate so we're not locked in on API yet.

What is changing is how the client libraries are built. I mentioned in another comment that we're building a headless web browser, if you haven't read it I'd recommend it as it gives a lot of detail on what we're attempting to do. Right now we've more or less validated every part with the exception of the overall render performance. This effort replaces LVN Core which was built in Rust. The Rust effort used UniFFI to message pass to the SwiftUI client. Boot time was also almost instant. With The Elixir browser we will have more overhead. Boot time is slower and I believe disterl could carry over overhead than UniFFI bindings. However, the question will come down to if that overhead is significant or not. I know it will be slower, but if the overall render time is still performant then we're good.

The other issue we ran into was when we started implementing more complex LiveView things like Live Components. While LVN Core has worked very well its implementation I believe was incorrect. It had passed through four developers and was originally only intended to be a template parser. It grew with how we were figuring out what the best path forward should be. And sometimes that path meant backing up and ditching some tech we built that was a dead end for us. Refactoring LVN Core into a browser I felt was going to take more time than doing it in Elixir. I built the first implementation in about a week but the past few months has been spent on building GenDOM. That may still take over a year but we're prioritizing the DOM API that LiveView, Hotwire, and Livewire will require. Then the other 99% of DOM API will be a grind.

But to your original point, going the route of the browser implementation means we are no longer locked into LiveView as we should be able to support any web client that does similar server/client side interactivity. This means our focus will be no longer on LiveView Native individually but ensuring that the browser itself is stable and can run the API necessary for any JS built client to run on.

I don't think we'd get to 100% compatibility with LiveView itself without doing this.

Oh wow, that actually sounds very promising! Thanks for the follow-up.