Respectfully, almost everything you said is just plain wrong.
1. Datastar supports req/reply just fine - be it via normal text/html responses, or SSE (0, 1, or infinity responses) https://data-star.dev/reference/actions#response-handling. So, the crux of your argument is moot...
Moreover, if htmx's real value is ajax request/response, then why are you introducing SSE as a first-class citizen now?
2. Datastar has data-on, and various other attributes, that allow for triggering far more actions than just backend requests, from far more (any) events. I'm glad to see that htmx is now following suit with hx-on, even if it is apparently limited in capabilities.
3. Datastar can do OOB-swaps just fine - that's literally the core functionality, via (their own, faster) idiomorph.
4. Its a misnomer that Datastar is for video games etc - again, as described above, it can do all of the simple things that that HTMX can do, and more. And, again, why is HTMX introducing SSE if its so apparently unnecessary and unwieldy?
5. What makes htmx popular is that it was the first library to make declarative fragment swapping easy. And Carson is just a god-tier marketer. Its nice to see that he's now realized that Delaney was on to something when he wanted to introduce all of these v4 features to HTMX 3 years ago, but was (fortunately for us happy users) forced to go make Datastar instead.
6. We havent even talked about one of the key features - declarative signals. Signals are justifiably taking over all of the JS frameworks and there's even an active proposal to make them part of the web platform. D* makes them simpler to use than any of them, and in a tiny package.
I, Delaney, and all other D* users are grateful for HTMX opening this door. But I reiterate my original question - now that HTMX is becoming Datastar-lite, why not just use Datastar given that the powerful extras don't add any complexity and comes in a smaller package?
So here's the htmx example for click to edit: [0]
<button hx-get="/contact/1/edit">
And here's the datastar one, edited for parity: [1]
<button data-on:click="@get('/contact/1/edit')">
The htmx one is simpler. There's fewer mini-languages to learn and the API makes more assumptions about what you want. As you noted, Datastar has more generalized mechanisms that are certainly less clunky than htmx's if you lean heavily into more signals- or event-driven behavior, but for (what I believe to be) the majority use-case of a CRUD website, htmx's simpler interface is easier to implement and debug.(For example: you will see the response associated with the request in the browser network tab; I'm not sure if Datastar has a non-SSE mode to support that but it wouldn't be true for SSE.) To each their own.
As for "well then why implement X, Y, or Z," as the OP notes, refactoring to use fetch() means you get them largely for free, without compromising the nice interface. So why not?
[0] https://htmx.org/examples/click-to-edit/
[1] https://data-star.dev/examples/click_to_edit
That tiny difference is hardly a reason not to use datastar, especially when it brings SO MUCH more useful stuff - all in a smaller package.
Moreover, the fact that Datastar is more generalized is actually better - HTMX has vastly more (non-standards-compliant) attributes that you need to learn.
https://htmx.org/reference/
vs
https://data-star.dev/reference/attributes
> I'm not sure if Datastar has a non-SSE mode to support that but it wouldn't be true for SSE.) To each their own.
My first point was literally saying that it has non-SSE and linked to the docs. You're not even trying to be objective here...
> So why not?
Yes, I have no problem with these things being implemented in v4. In fact, celebrated it in my original post. I brought it all up because you were describing that all as needless complexity in Datastar, but now you're implementing it.
Also, most of Datastar can be trivially disabled/unbundled because its nearly all plugins. That is largely not the case for HTMX.
Thus far, you've simply strongly confirmed my initial hunch that HTMX v4 is unnecessary compared to Datastar.
Less characters is not simple that's easy.
Which is why HTMX is having to bolt on more gubbins. Because, although it's less characters to type its fundamentally complected and therefore less composable.
I'm sure you've already warched it but if you haven't I'd recommend Rich Hickey's talk Simple made Easy.
I don't think the takeaway from Hickey's talk is just a blind 'simple is always good, easy is always bad'. It's actually important to offer 'easy' affordances in some cases. Htmx operates at a specific level of abstraction. This abstraction has been carefully chosen to work to create apps in a certain way. It's like a shortcut for creating a simple kind of hypermedia-driven app with some easy conveniences. I think this is a significant and important point in the design space.
The power in Datastar is YOU get to choose what plugins you use to build the API you what... want data-get, it's a few lines away from being yours! You can rebuild all of HTMX in Datastar, not the other way around. https://data-star.dev/examples/custom_plugin is a great intro
Yes, and the htmx philosophy is that it gives you some default functionality out of the box, it doesn't just hand you a bunch of building blocks and ask you to put everything together yourself. Both are valid approaches. I don't know why one side always has to come in and try to put down the other. Without htmx, there is no Datastar.
You are right! without HTMX 1 and the choices for future dev there would be no Datastar! If you think having a full framework while still allowing super easy way to make whatever API as you see fit is putting someone down, idk, ngmi.
That's not what I think. Just take a look at the top-level comments where Datastar supporters are coming in and doing the 'htmx 4 is just doing what Datastar does now, why do we need htmx' routine. First of all that's not even true, and secondly it's kinda transparent–whenever htmx gets discussed the Datastar fans show up to naysay.
the top-level comment (mine) literally celebrated the v4 changes, and I've done nothing but show respect and gratitude for HTMX.
I was simply asking, though, what I might be missing now that HTMX is becoming a (heavier) Datastar-lite (no signals and more). Given that these changes were literally previously rejected by HTMX and caused Datastar to even come into existence, it seems wholly appropriate to be making the comparison here.
Also, I can't speak for others, but when I've brought up Datastar in other HTMX-centric discussions here and elsewhere, its only when someone asks about things like SSE, idiomorph etc... I always say that if you're looking for those features, you might prefer to just use D... Now that those features are native to HTMX, I suppose they can just stay with it. But you get even more for less weight by moving to D
The largely nonsensical and overly-defensive responses from HTMX's devs/supporters have only made it clear to me that D* is the appropriate choice here.
Htmx supporters have explained why htmx over Datastar many times. This is not even the first thread about this topic. Even in this thread you can easily find people (including myself) explaining why htmx and what it does differently. We don't need to repetitively explain the same exact justifications every time someone asks. Do a little reading, it's all there.
If you are making technical decisions about web programming based on HN threads though, best of luck to you.
Lol
HTMZ-BE:
<a id="contact1" href="/contact/1/edit" role="button">Edit</a>
Hhhmmm..., that's more verbose than both :-(
"Their own faster idiomoroh"
HTMX's 4's morph is almost a copy paste of Datastar's.
To be fair, the idiomorph work came from Datastar and Turbo community efforts. There is a whole podcast about Micah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtBBqyDrJU&pp=ygUOZGF0YXN0Y.... Latent has been a huge force behind these ideas as well!