Over the Edge: Web Components are an endangered speciesWednesday, July 1st, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Last week I ran the panel and the web components/modules breakout session of the excellent Edge Conference in London, England and I think I did quite a terrible job. The reason was that the topic is too large and too fragmented and broken to be taken on as a bundle.
If you want to see the mess that is the standardisation effort around web components right now in all its ugliness, Wilson Page wrote a great post on that on Mozilla Hacks. Make sure to also read the comments – lots of good stuff there.
Web Components are a great idea. Modules are a great idea. Together, they bring us hours and hours of fun debating where what should be done to create a well-performing, easy to maintain and all around extensible complex app for the web. Along the way we can throw around lots of tools and ideas like NPM and ES6 imports or – as Alex Russell said it on the panel: “tooling will save you”.
It does. But that was always the case. When browsers didn’t support CSS, we had Dreamweaver to create horribly nested tables that achieved the same effect. There is always a way to make browsers do what we want them to do. In the past, we did a lot of convoluted things client-side with libraries. With the advent of node and others we now have even more environments to innovate and release “not for production ready” impressive and clever solutions.
When it comes to componentising the web, the rabbit hole is deep and also a maze. Many developers don’t have time to even start digging and use libraries like Polymer or React instead and call it a day and that the “de facto standard” (a term that makes my toenails crawl up – layout tables were a “de facto standard”, so was Flash video).
React did a genius thing: by virtualising the DOM, it avoided a lot of the problems with browsers. But it also means that you forfeit all the good things the DOM gives you in terms of accessibility and semantics/declarative code. It simply is easier to write a
Of course, either are easy for us clever and amazing developers, but the fact is that the web is not for developers. It is a publishing platform, and we are moving away from that concept at a ridiculous pace.
And whilst React gives us all the goodness of Web Components now, it is also a library by a commercial company. That it is open source, doesn’t make much of a difference. YUI showed that a truckload of innovation can go into “maintenance mode” very quickly when a company’s direction changes. I have high hopes for React, but I am also worried about dependencies on a single company.
Let’s rewind and talk about Web Components
Let’s do away with modules and imports for now, as I think this is a totally different discussion.
I always loved the idea of Web Components – allowing me to write widgets in the browser that work with it rather than against it is an incredible idea. Years of widget frameworks trying to get the correct performance out of a browser whilst empowering maintainers would come to a fruitful climax. Yes, please, give me a way to write my own controls, inherit from existing ones and share my independent components with other developers.
However, in four years, we haven’t got much to show.. When we asked the very captive and elite audience of EdgeConf about Web Components, nobody raised their hand that they are using them in real products. People either used React or Polymer as there is still no way to use Web Components in production otherwise. When we tried to find examples in the wild, the meager harvest was GitHub’s time element. I do hope that this was not all we wrote and many a company is ready to go with Web Components. But most discussions I had ended up the same way: people are interested, tried them out once and had to bail out because of lack of browser support.
Web Components are a chicken and egg problem where we are currently trying to define the chicken and have many a different idea what an egg could be. Meanwhile, people go to chicken-meat based fast food places to get quick results. And others increasingly mention that we should hide the chicken and just give people the eggs leaving the chicken farming to those who also know how to build a hen-house. OK, I might have taken that metaphor a bit far.
We all agreed that XHTML2 sucked, was overly complicated, and defined without the input of web developers. I get the weird feeling that Web Components and modules are going in the same direction.
In 2012 I wrote a longer post as an immediate response to Google’s big announcement of the foundation of the web platform following Alex Russell’s presentation at Fronteers 11 showing off what Web Components could do. In it I kind of lamented the lack of clean web code and the focus on developer convenience over clarity. Last year, I listed a few dangers of web components. Today, I am not too proud to admit that I lost sight of what is going on. And I am not alone. As Wilson’s post on Mozilla Hacks shows, the current state is messy to say the least.
We need to enable web developers to use “vanilla” web components
What we need is a base to start from. In the browser and in a browser that users have and doesn’t ask them to turn on a flag. Without that, Web Components are doomed to become a “too complex” standard that nobody implements but instead relies on libraries.
During the breakout session, one of the interesting proposals was to turn Bootstrap components into web components and start with that. Tread the cowpath of what people use and make it available to see how it performs.
Of course, this is a big gamble and it means consensus across browser makers. But we had that with HTML5. Maybe there is a chance for harmony amongst competitors for the sake of an extensible and modularised web that is not dependent on ES6 availability across browsers. We’re probably better off with implementing one sci-fi idea at a time.
I wished I could be more excited or positive about this. But it left me with a sour taste in my mouth to see that EdgeConf, that hot-house of web innovation and think-tank of many very intelligent people were as confused as I was.
I’d love to see a “let’s turn it on and see what happens” instead of “but, wait, this could happen”. Of course, it isn’t that simple – and the Mozilla Hacks post explains this well – but a boy can dream, right? Remember when using HTML5 video was just a dream?