Hacker News Reader

Comment by mixmastamyk | Hacker News Reader

1. These folks on such a project will otherwise need to deal with templates with Python in them. Inside out or outside in, there’s some complexity.

Linted, formatted, optionally typed Python is likely going to be more maintainable than html templates in the long run and is one of the easier langs to pick up. css/js can be linked separately.

I don’t see any limitations that would prevent one from using a template on a new page.

I recently looked into these kind of html builder libs, pioneered by dominate. “htpy” was the only one where I was impressed with the source code.

View on HN

I just don't see how a project beyond a small website can benefit from having it's front end generated in such a way. Once you grow beyond the "website" with simple interaction your front end becomes it's own universe. Coupling it all in the back end never ends well despite all good intentions. That has been my personal experience so far, so mileage varies etc.

As an aside, HTML is formatted in a very visual way in my opinion. The tag syntax makes it clear to visually identify blocks and layout elements. You lose this when you describe the layout in Python.

In our company, where htpy was born, we are building a highly interactive application with htpy combined with Alpine.js+htmx. We have a couple of thousands lines of htpy code in production right now. We stick all HTML generation code into components/x.py or components.py files to keep it separate from other code. It is easy to grasp the structure. We use type hints so it is clear what data different components expect. "Goto defintion" just works so it is easy to navigate the code.

I agree about that HTML looks better with tags and it takes a bit of getting used to the python syntax. If something like JSX was possible in Python with all the tooling working, that would be great.

> Once you grow beyond the "website" with simple interaction your front end becomes it's own universe

I think this has been a major failing/pain point of web-dev that this MUST be the case. However, I think fastHTML for me is going to fix that. Naturally there is no approach that is ideal in every case, but for a ton of them fastHTML I think works. I've built several things with fastHTML and am very optimistic.

As far as the visual identification, I think python is just as clear to see visual blocks as HTML, but comes with many additional refactoring options (that you can choose when it makes sense to use for your use-case).

Try playing with https://h2x.answer.ai/ and putting in some HTML code and see how it looks in python. Maybe you'll disagree, but I find it quite refreshing.

I guess it's a personal preference. I tried it, and it looked a mess in my eyes.

Take a strong tag:

    Div(
        "If you click '",
        Strong('Accept all'),
        "', we and",
        A('our partners', href='/v2/partners', target='_blank'),
        ...

It just verbose, very Java like, and feels like a step back in a commercial setting. It's absolutely fine if you're a single developer, HTML disgusts you, and Javascript is an abomination. I know people who think that way and I know they would love it. But I'm as comfortable with JS and I am with Python (after over 25 years using both). Someone likened JSX to it - but it's not even close - JSX brings the tag structure INTO JavaScript, not takes it away, to achieve the exact opposite result of fastHTML.

This is html building not js. It’s not any more verbose, in fact slightly less because no need for closing tags. Main difference is parens instead of angle brackets. Now you can use tools.

I do prefer lower case callables but that’s a minor nitpick, and “htpy” and other libs can do that.

Yes, it is HTML, and it loses all the benefits of HTML, by adding complexity of code and loss of structure. I'm uncomfortable with HTML and JS obfuscated by Python like that. I'm not using the word "verbose" as a character count comparison, but as an overall feel of weight when I see such code. It just takes me back to Java Swing, or ExtJS in the JavaScript world. It's not bad if it's the only way to describe an interface or layout. But there are better ways - HTML.

Please don't get my comments as criticism of the project itself, I think it's lovely and has a lot of merit. I've had to deal with the aftermath of these kind of things before, which makes me very aware of where it usually ends up at: Devs in language X don't like Html/JavaScript/Y/Z, so they wrap it with language X until X is all there is. Then one day, the business realises they have a codebase nobody other than it's original creators can or want to deal with, and any change becomes a behemoth of a project. It always starts with the best of intentions.

The complexity and structure are near equivalent. S-expressions are an html precursor.

Python is one of the most popular languages and easy to read. People are more resilient than given credit.

I tend to agree with your closing comment about over abstraction in general, however you may have forgotten that a Jinja/html template is an abomination of conflicting concepts.

I’m more worried about the rest of this framework to be honest. :-D

If you’re using backend templates it’s already coupled. The css as well. It’s a myth that separate langs in separate files == decoupled. I didn’t realize myself until recently—just got so used to it.

The main way around that is the SPA/API architecture, but that comes with huge complexity drawbacks as well.

Nothing special about html, at least as a Python string builder you can factor it and use tools. It can also be put into separate files. So many upsides and little to no downside besides initial surprise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com