alt Hacker News> Is it that Lit gives you a different way of authoring web components than the raw APIs?
than the raw APIs, than Polymer, than Stencil, than...
> Is it that from the outside the components aren't "Lit", but consumed as standard web components? Again, yes, that's entirely the point.
No. That is literally not the point. Which is extremely obvious from what I wrote in my original comment: "lit is both newer than React, and started as a fully backwards incompatible alternative to Polymer"
Again, at this point I literally couldn't care less for your obstinate willful avoidance of authoring, and of your pretending that only the output matters. (And other lies like "lit is native/just html" etc.)
> than the raw APIs, than Polymer, than Stencil, than...
Yes, and? Those are all different opinions and options on how to author web components.
> No. That is literally not the point. Which is extremely obvious from what I wrote in my original comment: "lit is both newer than React, and started as a fully backwards incompatible alternative to Polymer"
It's extremely hard to tell what your point is. Lit's newer than React? Yes. Lit started as an alternative to Polymer? Yes. Lit is "fully backwards incompatible [with] Polymer"? No, Lit and Polymer work just fine together because they both make web components. We have customers do this all the time.
I don't avoid authoring, authoring is the main point of these libraries. And what you build is just web components. That's like... the whole idea.
Can you even communicate what this complaint actually is?