alt Hacker News> 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?
> 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.
Keyword: make.
Again: you keep pretending that authoring web components is an insignoficant part of what people do.
At this point I am fully disinterested in your pretence.
> I don't avoid authoring, authoring is the main point of these libraries.
Yes yes. When authoring web components Polymer is fully compatible with lit.
(Funny when even lit's own channgelogs talk about backward incompatible breaking changes between versions, but sure, sure, Polymer you can just drop into the authoring flow, and everything will work lol).
But as I said, I am completely disinterested in web component salesmen at this point.
Adieu.