alt Hacker NewsI've always been a fan and supporter of HTMX, but lately I've wondered how beneficial it is now that LLMs can generate JavaScript for us. HTMX was especially useful when I wrote JavaScript by hand because I appreciated its higher level of abstraction and simplicity. I also struggled to make it work with AlpineJS and eventually had to resort to plain JavaScript, which gave me finer control. Normally, switching to JavaScript would have been a hassle but since an LLM can produce it as easily as any other text, I’m less clear on HTMX’s advantage. I’ve been getting along fine without it. If computers didn’t write code for us, I would still choose HTMX, but now I find it hard to justify the trade‑off.
Replies
There's definitely something to this: I expect LLMs to hurt the adoption of htmx and most smaller web libraries. That's fine: it's always been a labor of love and is BSD 0, so I hope the ideas are interesting and that the people who decide to use it enjoy it.
Out of curiosity, are you defaulting to vanilla js in your agentic dev stack? Or do you have the llm use a framework like react?
The main issue HTMX address is reducing complexity and LLMs doesn't solve it.
I'd expect it to be the other way around: LLMs will increase HTMX(and similar solutions) adoption because alongside of being excellent at writing HTMX there are also excellent writing web components.
React, vue and similar still have their use case, but htmx + web components can drive you really far.
> now that LLMs can generate JavaScript for us.
You mean generate unmaintainable JavaScript for us.
The last time I made a website about a year ago, Gemini used HTMX. It was actually my first experience with HTMX, so in a way, LLMs led to me adopting it. :D
It's hard to answer because I don't personally use HTMX as a way to avoid Javascript. HTMX is a Javascript library. And I don't know if I even find using HTMX easier/harder than writing JS, because they are fundamentally different approaches to building apps. It really just depends on what I'm trying to do.
One is a programming language used for writing client side code, and the other is a minimal library that makes server sent documents more ergonomic. Yes, it's a JS library with a few nice conveniences, but the main draw of HTMX encourages a completely different app architecture than what the average dev would arrive at with plain JS.
They're just two different things to me, and so it seems irrelevant if LLMs can help you write one faster. If you're only using HTMX to avoid JS, I don't see how LLMs discourage you from doing that. Wouldn't it be better to vibecode something you have an easier time reading than vibecode a language you don't even understand enough to use? What are you going to do if it blows up?
I mean, htmx and JS glue logic is truly the differentiator now because LLM's do it so well. It's absolutely the way to go.
the browser is and always will be built for dealing with SSR HTML
By default LLMs will start creating a tangled hard to test mess of javascript. But if you ask them to do TDD they will, and if you give them access to Playwright and have them write playwright tests this can all work.
The advantage for the LLM is the same for humans. With the right abstractions, code can be written quicker and more robustly.
To get more hands off with LLMS you really want to have a lot of engineering rigor. A big part of that is a focus on tests. If your abstractions make testing easier, your results will be a lot better. For Javascript the more you can test logic without DOM manipulation and without playwright tests, the better.
I found LLMs to be default to and be pretty good at working with HTMX, but not great (mostly lots of state synchronization issues). The focus on DOM markup of HTMX does not lend itself well to simplifying testing. I don't claim to be an expert at HTMX, but I don't see a separate section on testing in their documentation.
I am trying out the foldkit framework because it makes a lot more testable outside the DOM. Its probably too heavy weight for most humans (and for simple apps- it only seems appropriate for client-side apps), but I will see how well LLMs can work with it.