undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmasklinn8y ago0 comments

JSX could be language-integrated (witness the now-deprecated E4X for XML literals in Javascript), it just is not.

And most lisps don't have unfettered reader macros which would allow embedding macros using non-lisp syntax (aka JSX).

A macroed JSX wouldn't make much sense in Lisps really, and AFAIK isn't used with most clojurescript vdoms using either hiccup structures or regular function calls.

0 comments

viebel8y ago

who needs JSX when you have hiccup!

masklinnOP8y ago

Possibly a more uniform treatment of components versus "literal elements", but yeah the value proposition becomes very low.

In fact I'd argue the value proposition of JSX is already relatively low when you factor in hyperscript in regular javascript (and yes there are component-compatible hyperscript helpers for React).

lilactown8y ago

I think that Hiccup's idea of writing the tree as a tree-like data structure is superior to writing a tree of function calls.

I tried doing something similar in JavaScript; the result looks a bit silly (I realized the elegance of not needing to delimit lists with a , in LISP right here) and has questionable performance: https://github.com/Lokeh/hux

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse