HTMX vs AlpineJS - Which should you use for your web app?
Summary
TLDRIn this video, the presenter explores the differences between HTM X and Alpine JS, two low-JS tools for web development. They clarify that these tools are complementary, not competitors, and can be used together for optimal results. HTM X is recommended for server interactivity and partial page reloads, while Alpine JS is better for client-side interactions and when working with JavaScript libraries. The video aims to help developers choose the right tool for their web app's needs and emphasizes the simplicity and efficiency of using low-JS technologies.
Takeaways
- 🌐 HTM X and Alpine JS are low JS tools that complement each other and can be used together for building modern web apps without the bloat of traditional SPA frameworks.
- 🔧 HTM X is particularly suited for server interactivity, allowing for partial page reloads and updates based on server data, making it ideal for applications that display and manipulate server-side information.
- 🛠️ Alpine JS is best for client-side interactivity, handling tasks like modals and dropdowns that do not require server interaction and can be managed entirely in the browser.
- 🚀 Both HTM X and Alpine JS follow the low JS approach, which emphasizes minimal unnecessary baggage, no build steps, and the ability to include them directly from a CDN.
- 📝 HTM X uses HTML attributes to control element behavior, enabling developers to specify actions in response to user events directly in the markup.
- 🎯 HTM X is most effective when you have control over server responses and when your app's functionality is tied to data that resides on the server.
- 🛎️ Alpine JS excels at enhancing user experience with client-side features that do not need to communicate with the server, such as UI elements that are purely interactive.
- 💡 The combination of HTM X and Alpine JS can cover a broad range of web app development needs, from server-driven data presentation to client-side user interactions.
- 🌟 The use of HTM X and Alpine JS can lead to faster and cheaper web app development compared to traditional SPA frameworks, and they are not locked into specific technologies like Node.js.
- 🔗 The flexibility of HTM X and Alpine JS allows for building full-stack applications with the back-end language of your choice, promoting a more diverse and technology-agnostic approach to web development.
Q & A
What are HTM X and Alpine JS?
-HTM X and Alpine JS are low JavaScript (low JS) tools that enable the building of modern web apps without the bloat of popular SPA frameworks like React, Next.js, Svelte, and Vue.js.
How are HTM X and Alpine JS different from traditional SPA frameworks?
-HTM X and Alpine JS are part of the low JS trend, which focuses on providing functionalities with minimal unnecessary baggage. They don't require build steps, can be included directly from a CDN, and use mostly inline attributes for logic.
Why are HTM X and Alpine JS considered complementary tools?
-HTM X and Alpine JS are complementary because they focus on solving common but slightly different aspects of web app development. HTM X is good for server interactivity, while Alpine JS is for client interactivity, and they can often be used together effectively.
What is the main advantage of using HTM X for web app development?
-HTM X excels at server interactivity, allowing for partial page reloads based on data that lives on the server. It simplifies the process of making web pages dynamic and can lead to faster and cheaper web app development.
In what scenarios would HTM X be the best choice for building web apps?
-HTM X is best when you have control over the server and its responses, when your app runs on data only the server knows about, and when your app doesn't need complex or high-speed rendering.
What is the unique trait of HTM X?
-The unique trait of HTM X is its hyperfocus on hypermedia controls, which means it controls everything via HTML attributes, allowing for the definition of how HTML elements should behave in response to user actions or events.
How does Alpine JS differ from HTM X in terms of functionality?
-Alpine JS is designed for client-side interactivity. It's used for functionality that doesn't rely on or impact data that the server has, such as showing or hiding modals, dropdowns, or interacting with JavaScript libraries on the client.
What are some examples of client-side functionality where Alpine JS would be the better choice?
-Alpine JS is suitable for showing or hiding modals, dropdowns, or any interaction that involves JavaScript libraries on the client side, where server involvement is unnecessary and would only slow down the interaction.
Why might someone choose to use both HTM X and Alpine JS together in a web app?
-Using both HTM X and Alpine JS together can provide a powerful combination for web app development. HTM X handles server interactivity and partial page reloads, while Alpine JS takes care of client-side interactions, resulting in a more efficient and user-friendly web app.
What benefits does the low JS approach offer over traditional SPA frameworks?
-The low JS approach offers simplicity, minimal overhead, and the ability to use tools like HTM X and Alpine JS without being locked into a specific technology stack. It allows for faster and cheaper web app development and can be used with any back-end technology.
How does the low JS approach relate to the concept of 'full stack' development?
-The low JS approach supports 'full stack' development by allowing developers to use their preferred back-end language and technologies alongside front-end interactivity tools like HTM X and Alpine JS, without being constrained by the ecosystem of a specific SPA framework.
Outlines
🌐 Introduction to HTM X vs. Alpine JS
This paragraph introduces the topic of the video, which is a comparison between HTM X and Alpine JS for building web applications. It discusses the advantages of low JS tools like HTM X and Alpine JS over traditional SPA frameworks, emphasizing their simplicity and efficiency. The speaker shares their personal journey with low JS technologies and the decision to use HTM X and F instead of SvelteKit. The paragraph sets the stage for a detailed exploration of when and how to use HTM X and Alpine JS by clarifying that they are complementary tools, not competitors.
🛠 HTM X for Server Interactivity
The second paragraph delves into the unique capabilities of HTM X, particularly its focus on server interactivity. It explains how HTM X simplifies interactions with server data by allowing partial page reloads, which is a core feature of modern SPAs. The speaker highlights HTM X's hypermedia controls, which enable developers to define how HTML elements should behave in response to user actions directly through HTML attributes. The paragraph also discusses the scenarios where HTM X is most effective, such as when the developer has control over server responses and when the app's functionality relies on server data.
🔍 Alpine JS for Client Interactivity
Paragraph three shifts the focus to Alpine JS, which is best suited for client-side interactivity. It contrasts HTM X's server-centric approach with Alpine's client-centric one, explaining that Alpine is ideal for user interface elements that do not require server interaction, such as modals and dropdowns. The speaker advocates for the use of Alpine JS when working with third-party JavaScript libraries or when the functionality is entirely client-side. Alpine JS is praised for its ability to add client-side interactivity with minimal overhead, complementing HTM X's server-side capabilities.
🚀 Conclusion: Embracing the H Stack for Web App Development
The final paragraph concludes the video by summarizing the benefits of using HTM X and Alpine JS together, referring to this combination as the 'H Stack.' It emphasizes the flexibility and efficiency of this approach, which allows developers to build web apps faster and without being locked into a specific technology stack. The speaker shares their positive experience with the H Stack, comparing it favorably to traditional SPA frameworks. The paragraph also hints at other areas of exploration for efficient web app development in 2024, suggesting a broader shift towards simpler, more streamlined development practices.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Low JS Tools
💡HTMX
💡Alpine.js
💡Interactive Islands
💡Server Interactivity
💡Client Interactivity
💡Complementary Tools
💡Minimalist Approach
💡Full Stack Development
💡Hypermedia Controls
Highlights
HTM X and Alpine JS are low JS tools that allow building modern web apps without the bloat of popular SPA frameworks.
HTM X and Alpine JS are complementary and can be used together, focusing on different aspects of web app development.
Low JS tools provide functionalities with minimal unnecessary baggage, often including no build steps and minimal JS.
HTM X is particularly good for server interactivity and partial page reloads based on data from the server.
Alpine JS is suitable for client-side interactivity that doesn't require server interaction, such as modals and dropdowns.
HTM X works well when you have control over the server and its responses, as it expects HTML to be returned.
Alpine JS is ideal for functionality that is client-side only and does not need to update or display server data.
HTM X is not suitable for apps that require complex or high-speed rendering, as network calls to the server may not be fast enough.
Alpine JS can be used alongside HTM X to fill in gaps for client-side interactivity that doesn't require server involvement.
Using HTM X and Alpine JS allows for building web apps faster and cheaper than traditional SPA frameworks.
The 'H stack' approach with HTM X and any back-end language provides flexibility without locking into a specific tech stack.
The video discusses the author's personal journey and preference for HTM X and Alpine JS over other SPA frameworks.
HTM X and Alpine JS enable a simpler and more straightforward development cycle compared to complex SPA frameworks.
The video provides an overview of how to build full-stack HTM X apps with a back-end of choice.
The author shares their reasons for moving from Next.js to a stack that includes HTM X and Alpine JS for front-end interactivity.
The video concludes with a recommendation for the 'H stack' approach for building web apps that require server interactivity.
Transcripts
hey everyone welcome back to the lab in
this video we're going to be comparing
HTM X versus Alpine JS and specifically
answering the question which one should
you use for building your web app so low
JS tools like htx and Alpine are the
future of the web they allow us to build
modern web apps without the bloat of
popular Spa Frameworks these are things
like react nextjs spel kit vgs you know
they're better than what came before but
they are not uh as great as is they
could be now I've been researching and
experimenting with low JS Technologies
for the past year eventually deciding to
build my apps with htx and F instead of
spoke kit I found that the ljs approach
is much simpler while providing all the
power I need to build modern web app now
one of the things that took me a while
to understand and that I see a good
amount of confusion about in the
community is how to choose between ljs
tools HTM X and Alpine for building your
own web apps some guides will use one
some will use the other and then many
will use both and so in this post I want
to clarify the differences so you can
make the best choice for your web app
and start building and stop bike
shedding the first thing I want to note
is that HTM X and Alpine JS are
complimentary so the decision between
htx and Alpine JS is not an exclusive
one these are not competing tools
offering the same functionality though
there is overlap in what each of them
can do so this isn't like a choice
between react or view or angular or
spelt in which case they're kind of
doing overlapping things in different
ways and so you're probably going to
choose one to do most of your work um
here there is some overlap but often you
can use them together and often that's
what you will want to do and so they're
complimentary and they work well
together because they focus on solving
common but slightly different aspects of
web app development and so this is why
using both of them is sometimes more
powerful than using just one and another
aspect that they have that is kind of
fundamental to this new trend um or
pattern of libraries we're seeing that
that we're calling ljs is that they're
going to provide these functionalities
with like minimal unnecessary baggage
and so some examples of this that you
know we might have come to expect or to
be the norm with a lot of these like
bloated client side uh single page
application Frameworks um logs kind of
takes a different approach and so
there's no build steps you can just
include it from a CDN on your web page
and you can just use it so you don't
have to worry about npm you don't have
to worry about setting up Vite or Turbo
or bun or whatever random new build tool
JS comes out with just include it on the
page just use it it works um there's
very minimal JS so we're using mostly
inline attributes and so what this
allows us to do is we can basically
build all the logic and stuff directly
in our markup and just send it so this
could be a static page it could be a
server side rendered page um and it will
just have the functionality in the mark
up and so we don't have to write all
these like crazy framework things that
these Spas are doing we don't have to
worry about all this other overhead um
it's very simple to see when you look at
the markup this is what the thing is
doing um there's not like some file from
100 files away that's being pulled in
randomly and and causing weird Behavior
and the next one is that they're very
easy to compose because there's no build
steps because there's minimal JS because
the logic is in the markup it's very
easy to see how these aren't going to
affect each other you can sprinkle them
in in the web page where you want they
only
affect kind of that local markup um and
so you can use a little bit of it and
you don't have to infect your entire um
code base with that choice um which
unfortunately you do mostly have to do
with the single page application
Frameworks um because they all rely on
node and they all have a specific way of
doing things and if you don't play with
the life cycle uh it just doesn't work
as well um but you can do that with
these low. JS tools and so these work
well together which is why you'll see
just as many apps using both HTML X and
Alpine as you will just Alpine or just
HTM X and often what you'll see is a few
of these low JS tools will be used um
together so it might be htx and Alpine
but you could swap in a different one
for either of those that are kind of
focused on specific aspect of web app
development okay so now that we've seen
the similarities of these libraries
let's talk about how each is uniquely
solving things what each is uniquely
good at in the web app development
sphere so you're going to want to use HT
Max for server interactivity and
basically think about using htx we often
are thinking about using interactive
Islands um and so basically most web
pages are mostly static and then we've
got some widgets on the page that are
like doing stuff this is where htx
shines and where it really shines is
because it allows you to do partial page
reloads um and so when you do this you
can easily make your page Dynamic Based
on data that lives on the server and
most web apps really just display data
that's on the server and hmx is really
good at this so for Server interactivity
when you want to access data on the
server that is what h hmx excels at um
and this is my overview of interactive
Islands uh this is from my guide using F
and HTM X for simple Interac vience and
you can check that out there okay so hmx
is focused on making server
interactivity simple and Powerful its
unique trait is that it's hyperfocused
on hyper media controls what this means
for us is that it controls everything
via HTML attributes HTML being a hyper
media you can tell HTML elements how
they should behave when a user does
something or an EV e curse so you can
say like if you click this button send
out this um request to the server or
after 30 seconds send out this request
to the server and so it'll send a
request to the server based on um you
know you have a trigger here it'll send
a request to the server you'll have an
attribute saying what do you want me to
send to the server where does it go um
and then you can then say this is what
you do with the HTML that is returned
and what this allows us to do is swap
out partial pages and this is this is
really important it's this partial page
reload that gives this superpowers now
this may not seem like much but the
ability to do partial page reloads and
in particular targeted partial page
reloads is actually the fundamental
thing that Spa the single page
applications are doing to feel fast when
we think about it what is spell and spel
kit doing what is react and nextjs doing
what is vuejs and N doing what they're
doing the fundamental thing they're
doing is that they have a backing data
store and they connect it to the UI
that's rendered and then when the data
store changes they are only partially
reloading the UI that that is the
fundamental value proposition that they
bring is that they're doing partial page
reloads and this makes it feel fast and
it makes it feel Dynamic and so htx
allows you to build these same modern
feeling apps because it gives you the
power to do these partial page reloads
directly in your markup but because it's
in the markup without the extra baggage
this is simpler faster and cheaper to
build okay okay so that's how it does
that so when should you use HT Max and I
think there's a few cases here and these
are basically um ands so so if any of
these fails htx might not be the best
tool at least for that one particular
type again it's highly composable so you
can use it in Parts where you need it
and then if you have a special case you
can go use something else that's better
suited the first one is when you have
control over the server and its
responses so hmx does expect HTML
returns which is different from a lot of
libraries a lot of apis and stuff going
to try to return you Json or whatever
their you know RPC binary format is but
it does expect HTML to be returned so
what you're going to need to be able to
do is modify the server endpoints
because if you want to change the the
HTML that's being returned you want to
change the UI the controls um how it
interacts with the server you need to be
able to change that HTML you need
control over the server if you don't
have control over the server for
whatever reason um then htx is probably
not going to work that well for you uh
because you're going to lose that
control the next time when you should
use HTM Max is um when your app runs on
data only the server knows about now any
app that persists data or does crud
operations does this right like if you
think about what most apps are doing
they're really just reading data from
the back end and and getting the data on
the front end they're trying to display
the data they're trying to allow users
to do stuff on the data so this is most
apps actually even though this seems
really you know simple so most apps do
this but if your thing is only doing
things that exist in the browser um
these are things like JavaScript based
calculators or maybe you have like an
image editor that like is doing
everything locally maybe even like a
video game that's that's all running
locally and there's no like back syncing
there's no UI syncing from the server um
basically everything's rendered front in
then HDMX probably won't help that much
um so for most apps like you know
they're just doing the server stuff HDMX
great but if it's just client side stuff
like you know HDMX doesn't really need
going to help you much because the
server doesn't need to get involved in
that stuff stuff okay and then the next
time when htx is good is when your app
doesn't need complex or high-speed
rendering um and so HDMX is quite fast
and in many cases it's much faster than
Spas when data needs to be read and
returned from the server because it
skips a whole layer of logic for um API
needing to serialize to a specific form
and then you got to send it over the
wire and then the client needs to
deserialize this thing and then it needs
to parse that data out to understand it
and then it's got to turn that data into
something usable based on its own
business logic to turn it into um the
actual UI we kind of skip that whole
step because a server just does it and
just sends you a thing and it's like use
this so often for these like things
where we need server data hmax is
actually quite fast and faster um than
these other Frameworks but that doesn't
mean that you know it's still a network
request this isn't for free um and so if
you're building something that needs to
run at like 60 FPS that's doing a lot of
like frame rerenders um like a video
game or something like that then like a
network call to the server just just
will never be fast enough to kind of do
the updates um and so you should really
reach for like a more specialized local
rendering engine you know whether it's
like phaser or um I don't know use like
wasm or something so that's actually
fast locally that's what you're going to
need to kind of support that very fast
back and forth but most apps don't need
this like unless you're building a video
game really you you won't need that but
in that case you you wouldn't want htx
probably and so to conclude you know htx
is great for building web apps that
require server interactivity and where
you're displaying and updating data
located on the server which again most
web apps and even for web apps that
don't do this a majority of the codebase
is going to be doing this so still very
good for adding this kind of
interactivity sprinkling it in to your
code base and so for these cases reach
for HDMX great tool for this okay so
that's htx and for Alpine we want to use
Alpine for client interactivity and so
while most interactivity you know
probably 80 plus% of what you might want
to do in a web app um this works well
with HTM X's SSR HTML approach because
again most web apps basically just
displaying and updating data on the
server um it may not be the best tool
for everything so for example there are
some things we might want to build to
make the user experience better that
doesn't rely on or impact in any way the
data that the server has and so these
are going to be things like you know
showing or hiding a modal um so like if
I were to like click this and it pops up
a modal or and then I click something
else and the modal disappears like the
server doesn't need to be involved in
that because like I'm not changing data
I'm not uh I don't need to read Dynamic
data it's just stuff that's on the web
page already and it's like oh I should
show the user I should get it out it's
just it's augmenting the U but the
server just doesn't need to be involved
in that it's not adding anything another
example of this is like if we're
interacting with a JavaScript library on
a web page like I don't know if we're
doing math or something maybe we have
like a math calculator like JavaScript
library and we want to say like here's
the inputs from the user user give me
the the thing back like the server
wouldn't add anything in this
interaction because we have everything
locally um or maybe it's a map Library
like the map only exists in our client
so we don't need to ask the server about
this we just need to tell the JavaScript
map library to like change or whatever
for these things that only live on the
client and they don't gain anything from
asking the server for information or
they don't need to update the data that
exists on the server then it doesn't
really make sense to do that server
Network call and in fact trying to ask
the server for this information or
trying to get the server involved in
this thing that's really only client
only can often be awkward because it's
like why are we doing this like it's
unnecessary um and slow it's just like a
network called will never be as fast as
like a local thing so if you don't need
to make a network call if there's no
need for that then like don't and so
this is where Alpine really shines and
why Alpine or really any other um kind
of lightweight client interactivity
library is often used alongside h htx
htx is really great for the server
interactivity but for client side stuff
when we don't need the server
interactivity you'll often use something
else could be like Alpine jQuery
hyperscript things like that so kind of
get you the the extra 20% of the way to
improve your ux now Alpine JS takes a
similar ljs approach allowing you to
declare client side state and
functionality in a simple concise way
directly in your HTML and this allows it
to play very nice with HT Max as all
your minimal logic declarations can be
declared and viewed all in one place
which kind of serves the locality of
behavior principle um and so HTM X
you're just doing HTML attributes it's
really just right in the markup and same
with alpine for the most part um it's
all going to be directly in your markup
and then you have the option of adding a
little bit of extra JavaScript that
plugs into your Alpine if you want to do
something a little bit more fancy okay
so when should you use Alpine JS um the
first one is when you have functionality
that is client side only as we kind of
talked about you know the most common
examples of this is like showing or
hiding a modal or maybe a drop down like
a hamburger menu stuff like that this
stuff really only exists on the client
to augment the user experience and the
server doesn't need to know about this
and it doesn't really make sense to wait
on a network call for it so things like
this where the server just it doesn't
care if it's open or closed it only
cares what like the end action is like
just you know don't ask the server for
it just do it on the client the next one
is when you need to interact with JS
libraries on the client so you know
JavaScript has a massive ecosystem it's
likely you're going to want to leverage
some third party libraries for
visualizations or drag and drops or you
know anything like that and for these
like you might as well just use
JavaScript for easier integration um
you're going to have to do that anyway
you don't need to get into the like wait
on a network call to send you back
something and then you run it like
Alpine gives you these simple life cycle
hooks you can run it directly on the
client you can use browser native events
so you know don't make things hard on
yourself just like use use the little
JavaScript here and so Alpine JS is
really great for sprinkling client
interactivity in your app with minimal
JavaScript overhead so when it doesn't
make sense to ask the server something
Alpine JS can fill in the gaps next so
far I've really been enjoying building
web apps with HDMX and Alpine I found it
allows me to build my web apps faster
and cheaper than the Spas ever did plus
it doesn't lock me into a specific
technology like node uh so I can build
full stack apps with f my favorite
language and hmx and Alpine for
front-end interactivity and this is the
power of the H stack hyper media on
whatever you like and really what these
low JS Technologies unlock is that you
don't get bound into this whole
ecosystem to just like use this one
thing which unfortunately like you know
react and spelt and angular and view say
that you're not locked in but you kind
of have to run node or something or some
build tool in order to get it to work so
it's very unwieldy to use in any other
kind of back end and that's why we end
up with all these new full stack things
which are nextjs n spell kit and all
those things which are trying to make
this easier but again it's like you're
just making it more explicit that I am
bound into this whole Tech stack when I
didn't want to use this anyway all I
want wanted was just to make it easy to
make frun end so the power of the house
stack this is why we like low JS now if
you like this post you might also like
three areas I'm exploring to build more
side projects faster and cheaper in 2024
low JS is one of these also exploring
some other things really trying to make
my development cycle just simpler and
nicer and honestly better um than kind
of what's been popular for the past 5
years because it's it's just too
complicated we don't need that um the
next one is simple interactive island
with FP and htx kind of giving an
overview of how I'm thinking about
building full stack HTM X apps um on my
back end of choice and then you might
also be interested in why I'm moving
from spel kit to F which kind of goes
through my journey of falling in and out
of like with these Spa Frameworks um and
then kind of how I found something
better and then decided that that was
like the right path to go that's it for
this video thanks for watching and I'll
see you in the next one
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)