I always love seeing more done in the web component space. I think Lit has the no build process captured pretty well and they include things such as a router.
I do prefer the style of of your components more, where you separate out the script and styles with html tags. I don't know if one way or the other is superior for performance, I but just like the separation verse the templated strings in Lit.
With build tools being so straightforward now-a-days, I struggle to see the value in the build less approach. One use case I can think of is maybe a constrained environment where the application contains some kind of customizable user components fully in the browser like a reporting WYSIWIG of some kind.
Is there a particular reason you prefer this approach?
With the caveat that I’m generally outside of the web dev sphere aside from casual tinkering: no build process means no setup and one fewer thing that can break. That’s valuable in itself.
> Is there a particular reason you prefer this approach?
Compared to Lit? Firstly, I like Lit. My approach is better for me because there are far fewer things to know in order to create a reusable object and there are far fewer things to know in order to use an existing object.
IOW, my approach trades off functionality in favour of a lower cognitive burden for me. I just wanted something that had the minimum functionality I need - create an object and then reuse it. For me, anything outside of that goal is peripheral burden that I'd rather not get bogged down in.
I agree with many here that this is not an approach for them, maybe even for most, but I am certain that if I find something useful that increases my velocity of feature delivery, then maybe someone else will as well.
One major benefit of not having a build process is that you can make changes and instantly see the result without delay.