I first thought that I would never use Alpine, but now it is part of almost all new projects. "Putting JS into the HTML" seemed so obviously wrong for me first, but it's absolutely enough for 90% of micro interactions like dropdowns, navigations, toggles or whatever you would put into a 10-line JS file otherwise.
Of course, it is NOT a replacement for React or other big frontend frameworks.
Surprised nobody has brought up htmx [0], which is very similar but the syntax is cleaner (imo of course).<p>[0]: <a href="https://htmx.org/" rel="nofollow">https://htmx.org/</a>
Why is there no information on the README about what functionality does this framework offer, or why I might be interested in using it? Isn't this supposed to be the first piece of information a potential user should be interested in before getting into the how?
The whole “16 attributes, 6 properties, 2 methods” thing is very approachable. Excellent docs.<p>I work on a few projects that only have simple interactions, no build step, and currently written in vanilla. It’s simple, but fussy. Imperatively building UI things is a nightmare. You get tired of it all and start building your own framework. Kinda silly.<p>Alpine might just be the solution. And I bet the size will be about the same.
Every AlpineJS article I read has the disclaimer that this framework isn't meant for large applications without ever defining what that actually means.
I can't take a project described as a "JavaScript framework" serious these days. A framework for _what_? Many things are done with JS nowadays.
This looks bad. I see custom syntax, and JavaScript embedded into HTML in a way that cannot be syntax-checked at build time.<p>If you want a lightweight framework check out UIBuilder instead: <a href="https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder</a><p>Same JSX syntax as React, but this lib is very simple -- just over 200 lines of source code.