> These "we cut 70% of our codebase" claims always make me laugh.

There's also a slide in my talk that presents how many JS dependencies we dropped, while not adding any new Python. Retrospectively, that is a much more impressive achievement.

Thanks to Chris to continue challenging his comfort zone (and mine!) and sharing his impressions and learnings with us!

I may be a little biased because I've been writing webapps with htmx for 4 years now, but here are my first thoughts:

- The examples given in this blogpost show what seems to be the main architectural difference between htmx and Datastar: htmx is HTML-driven, Datastar is server-driven. So yes, the API on client-side is simpler, but that's because the other side has to be more complex: on the first example, if the HTML element doesn't hold the information about where to inject the HTML fragment returned by the server, the server has to know it, so you have to write it somewhere on that side. I guess it's a matter of personal preference then, but from an architecture point-of-view both approaches stand still

- The argument of "less attributes" seems unfair when the htmx examples use optional attributes with their default value (yes you can remove the hx-trigger="click" on the first example, that's 20% less attributes, and the argument is now 20% less strong)

- Minor but still: the blogpost would gain credibility and its arguments would be stronger if HTML was used more properly: who wants to click on <span> elements? <button> exists just for that, please use it, it's accessible ;-)

- In the end I feel that the main Datastar selling point is its integration of client-side features, as if Alpine or Stimulus features were natively included in htmx. And that's a great point!

Of course, but when you'll get to build your web UI, server-side generated HTML will not be the right choice.

My feeling as an old-time "web developer" who has been bullied into becoming a "back-end dev" is: thank you, I think I know quite well the basics of standard front-end technologies, but suddenly some people started yelling at me "you're a grandpa, now you can't send HTML from the server anymore, it's lame, you have to send to the browser a JS app that will manipulate the DOM live instead". This new (in 2015) approach has flooded our brains with a deluge of libs, frameworks, tools, concepts, problems, etc. which are a lot more than 5% of the effort of bootstrapping a React app, let alone optimizing it and maintaining it. I know people who's main job is creating React apps and who are overwhelmed with the complexity of the stack. If you don't hire someone dedicated, the rest of your product (domain rules, database optimization, infrastructure, devops, etc.) will suffer.

I know so-called "senior frontend engineers" whose speciality is React, and who can't handle React. So all others...

This thing (and others like Vue, let me be clear) adds many layers of complexity over the web platform (client-side routing, data fetching, state management, rendering, etc.) and many third-party JS libs that you have to constantly update. You just can't say that it's standard/base web development.