Proposal: native XML object support.

Wes Garland wes at page.ca
Wed May 22 02:56:29 UTC 2019


As a data point -- I was writing JavaScript applications with GPSEE, a
server-side Spidermonkey embedding, for several years until recently. The
design pattern was, for all intents and purposes, CGI.

GPSEE has E4X capability.  I used it a few times to generate xhtml
documents.  I never found a compelling application.  Being able to use XML
object literals honestly caused more problems than it solved.

If I really needed XML interchange today, I would try really hard to
represent it internally with javascript objects and render/parse it at the
network boundary.

The only two things I ever found useful in E4X was template strings (which
we have in ES6 backticks now) and for each.

Wes

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 19:58, Jacob Pratt <jhprattdev at gmail.com> wrote:

> JSX doesn't necessarily need a vDOM.
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019, 10:31 kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jsx is not terribly javascripty ... vs direct manipulation of the dom
>> (using static-functions/handlers).
>>
>> it requires two extra ux-workflow transformations -- 1) transpilation and
>> 2) virtual-dom manipulation, for the sake of oft-quoted faster
>> dom-performance, which some like me are skeptical is true in modern
>> browsers.
>>
>> -kai
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2019, 16:35 Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> People use JSX, which is basically E4X, so I'd argue the word useless is
>>> not really appropriate. You can use E4X to produce HTML, the fact we're
>>> talking XML is merely about the E4X background, but as you could produce
>>> strings out of E4X you could do the same and have better templating out of
>>> the box.
>>>
>>> But like I've said, I already use template literal tags, but those
>>> strings don't get hints or highlights as if these were E4X, XML, or plain
>>> HTML, which is the only cool thing I'd personally find useful.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just a tooling issue though.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:06 PM ViliusCreator <
>>> viliuskubilius416 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > the client, it could still somehow shine in NodeJS though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only way it can shine is only passing HTML objects as arg to
>>>> website. That’s it. And still, you can use string to do that for you.
>>>> People already use JSON and I don’t think they would use XML in Node js.
>>>> There are already tons of libs for XML stuff, yet they don’t have a lot of
>>>> downloads, as far as I remember.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So basically, Node js doesn’t need XML. That would be useless.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>


-- 
Wesley W. Garland
Director, Product Development
PageMail, Inc.
+1 613 542 2787 x 102
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190521/a037461b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list