That's the point of FastHTML maybe, but the article linked says "higher level components" which is a lie. This is an enormous distinction, and not even close to subtle.
> You seem to be arguing that more complexity, moving further from the foundations of the web, is a good thing.
You use the word "complexity" in a weasel way.
It's fine to not have higher levels of abstraction in your framework. It's not fine to lie and say you do when you do not.
That's the point of FastHTML maybe, but the article linked says "higher level components" which is a lie. This is an enormous distinction, and not even close to subtle.
> You seem to be arguing that more complexity, moving further from the foundations of the web, is a good thing.
You use the word "complexity" in a weasel way.
It's fine to not have higher levels of abstraction in your framework. It's not fine to lie and say you do when you do not.