@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Because of that, getting started with it can be a little bit confusing at first.
## 1. Use the REPL
The [Svelte REPL](https://svelte.technology/repl) is the easiest way to begin. You can choose from a list of examples to get you started, and tweak them until they do what you want.
The [Svelte REPL](repl) is the easiest way to begin. You can choose from a list of examples to get you started, and tweak them until they do what you want.
<aside><p>You'll need to have <ahref="https://nodejs.org/">Node.js</a> installed, and know how to use the terminal</p></aside>
@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ The consequence of all this is the **append-only stylesheet**. There's no way of
The idea behind SFCs is simple: you write your components in an HTML file that (optionally) contains a `<style>` and `<script>` attribute describing the component's styles and behaviour. Svelte, Ractive, Vue and Polymer all follow this basic pattern.
<aside>
<p><ahref="https://svelte.technology/blog/frameworks-without-the-framework">Read the introductory blog post</a> if you're new to Svelte. Or <ahref="https://twitter.com/padolsey/status/899717303234908160">read</a><ahref="https://twitter.com/sveltejs/status/901818357644701696">the</a><ahref="https://twitter.com/sveltejs/status/901818106309476352">testimonials</a>.</p>
<p><ahref="blog/frameworks-without-the-framework">Read the introductory blog post</a> if you're new to Svelte. Or <ahref="https://twitter.com/padolsey/status/899717303234908160">read</a><ahref="https://twitter.com/sveltejs/status/901818357644701696">the</a><ahref="https://twitter.com/sveltejs/status/901818106309476352">testimonials</a>.</p>
</aside>
(For the rest of this article we'll be using Svelte, obviously. But if the idea of using a template language makes you shudder — your fears are misplaced, but that's a topic for another day — then just use Vue which lets you use JSX in your SFCs.)
[Svelte introduced a radical idea](https://svelte.technology/blog/frameworks-without-the-framework): what if your UI framework wasn't a framework at all, but a compiler that turned your components into standalone JavaScript modules? Instead of using a library like React or Vue, which knows nothing about your app and must therefore be a one-size-fits-all solution, we can ship highly-optimised vanilla JavaScript. Just the code your app needs, and without the memory and performance overhead of solutions based on a virtual DOM.
[Svelte introduced a radical idea](blog/frameworks-without-the-framework): what if your UI framework wasn't a framework at all, but a compiler that turned your components into standalone JavaScript modules? Instead of using a library like React or Vue, which knows nothing about your app and must therefore be a one-size-fits-all solution, we can ship highly-optimised vanilla JavaScript. Just the code your app needs, and without the memory and performance overhead of solutions based on a virtual DOM.
The JavaScript world is [moving towards this model](https://tomdale.net/2017/09/compilers-are-the-new-frameworks/). [Stencil](https://stenciljs.com), a Svelte-inspired framework from the Ionic team, compiles to web components. [Glimmer](https://glimmerjs.com) *doesn't* compile to standalone JavaScript (the pros and cons of which deserve a separate blog post), but the team is doing some fascinating research around compiling templates to bytecode. (React is [getting in on the action](https://twitter.com/trueadm/status/944908776896978946), though their current research focuses on optimising your JSX app code, which is arguably more similar to the ahead-of-time optimisations that Angular, Ractive and Vue have been doing for a few years.)
@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ But size is only part of the story. Svelte apps are also extremely performant an
The biggest drawback for many developers evaluating Sapper would be 'but I like React, and I already know how to use it', which is fair.
If you're in that camp, I'd invite you to at least try alternative frameworks. You might be pleasantly surprised! The [Sapper RealWorld](https://github.com/sveltejs/realworld) implementation totals 1,201 lines of source code, compared to 2,377 for the reference implementation, because you're able to express concepts very concisely using Svelte's template syntax (which [takes all of five minutes to master](https://svelte.technology/docs#template-syntax)). You get [scoped CSS](the-zen-of-just-writing-css), with unused style removal and minification built-in, and you can use preprocessors like LESS if you want. You no longer need to use Babel. SSR is ridiculously fast, because it's just string concatenation. And we recently introduced [svelte/store](https://svelte.technology/docs#state-management), a tiny global store that synchronises state across your component hierarchy with zero boilerplate. The worst that can happen is that you'll end up feeling vindicated!
If you're in that camp, I'd invite you to at least try alternative frameworks. You might be pleasantly surprised! The [Sapper RealWorld](https://github.com/sveltejs/realworld) implementation totals 1,201 lines of source code, compared to 2,377 for the reference implementation, because you're able to express concepts very concisely using Svelte's template syntax (which [takes all of five minutes to master](docs#template-syntax)). You get [scoped CSS](the-zen-of-just-writing-css), with unused style removal and minification built-in, and you can use preprocessors like LESS if you want. You no longer need to use Babel. SSR is ridiculously fast, because it's just string concatenation. And we recently introduced [svelte/store](docs#state-management), a tiny global store that synchronises state across your component hierarchy with zero boilerplate. The worst that can happen is that you'll end up feeling vindicated!
But there are trade-offs nonetheless. Some people have a pathological aversion to any form of 'template language', and maybe that applies to you. JSX proponents will clobber you with the 'it's just JavaScript' mantra, and therein lies React's greatest strength, which is that it is infinitely flexible. That flexibility comes with its own set of trade-offs, but we're not here to discuss those.
Richard Harris
6 years ago