I appreciate the no-build-step approach. It’s refreshing to see a return to simplicity, even if it feels cyclical—similar libraries have come and gone, but that’s how the web evolves. As browsers continue to improve and embrace web standards, it makes sense to lean into tools that trend toward minimalism and simplicity. Great job!
I love that this lets you create custom elements! I think that's a big missing feature from HTMX (even though HTMX can already use custom elements).
I'm working on a somewhat similar system called Heximal. It focuses on adding full-fledged templating to the <template> element, and full declarative component definitions to HTML, plus some built-in custom elements like <h-var>, <h-out>, <h-scope>, <h-include>, and <h-fetch> that make HTML more of a declarative programming language.
A big difference from HTMX is that it doesn't rely on magic attributes, but instead adds full data-binding with rich expressions for any attribute or text content, and control flow, to <template>. And component definitions include defining properties, attributes, styles, etc.
These things are being proposed for HTML, so Heximal is somewhat of a polyfill for HTML from the future. Or it's a bit like Tangle or Curvenote.
I love the information architecture of this site. You jump right in to demonstration code and a reference and only later the marketing text. So refreshing. I can see at a glance what the project is and what makes it different. Kudos!
You may use this project under the terms of the MIT License for non-commercial
projects OR as long as you are sponsoring this project through GitHub sponsors
with a monthly minimum donation of 1 (one) dollar using the link below:
GitHub sponsors, Simon Lecoq: <https://github.com/sponsors/lowlighter>
You may use this project free of charge under the terms of the GNU Affero v3.
If you have any MIT licensed libraries, it isn't compatible. Nor are the LGPL, BSD, or Apache licenses. So, there are a lot of downsides to accidentally using this license.
I built my own frontend framework for similar reasons: https://github.com/fresho-dev/mancha. It was meant to adress the lack of lightweight solutions that worked both on the frontend and the backend. The main goal was to start with client side rendering and, only if you reach the point where you need it, switch to server side rendering. It also includes a drop in replacement for TailwindCSS except it won't yell at you for doing everything client side.
What I really wanted was a better maintained version of PetiteVue. But that highlights another problem: I simply can't trust anyone in the frontend JavaScript ecosystem, I've been burned too many times. It took a while to get to the point of it being usable, but now I know no one can pull the rug from under me. I use only the most basic APIs possible, only 1-2 third party dependencies, and as little hacks as possible.
It still has a few warts here and there but I hope to be able to call it a 1.0 stable version soon enough.
In Hungarian, mizujs means "what's up", and it's often shortened to mizu, so, having a mizu.js JavaScript library would be a pretty cool name (for us who understand Hungarian).
Oh you’re right! That’s exciting, I can’t wait to use it. Just starred the repo and will be taking it for a spin on my next project. Glad the author listened to the feedback here, I think it positions the library for way more usage.
It reminds me of vue templates. I’d love to see some benchmarks comparing it with react jsx and vue/nuxt, both for server-side and client-side. Thanks!
Vue is still recognizable as HTML, and to me looks more like HTML than JSX. This looks less like HTML to me than either Vue or JSX. It reminds me of Marko. Marko still looks messy to me after having tried to get into it, but YMMV.
It's because it's mostly based on the vue syntax short hands (@ for event, # for slots and : for attribute bindings, :: was also proposed at a time for model in vue too but it was still being discussed last time i checked)
Rather than using a v- prefix like vue has, mizu uses *, but it's essentially the same.
All in all, I feel like it's still pretty close to what vue offers, at least when you plug it directly to your html page without passing by the component/composition way of writing vue.
I took a lot from vue (maybe more petite-vue at this point) and alpine to make mizu actually
I have created a templating system in Java that uses the Vue syntax. Many of the common features are present. To minimize dependency, I chose to use Java's built-in XML parser to parse the template. Which means, the template has to be a valid XML. I've been using it mainly to generate email content.
Slick looking website, novel and relatively intuitive DSL, solid documentation!
Parsing the playground demo was a fun scavenger hunt! Too fun... it took me several minutes to find `(coins += income)` at the line break. For me, it's difficult to scan for "code" that's in-lined as strings. That <progress/> eval, especially, is a doozy!
> Use this [eval] directive sparingly, prefer alternative directives for better maintainability and security. This directive is intended for edge cases.
Oh, and yet *eval is the heart and soul of the demo? In fact, it looks like the principal action--creating buildings--is performed by... the progress bar? That's low-cohesion and high-coupling if I've ever seen it.
I would want to know: what are the Mizu ways of modularizing code to increase cohesion and decrease coupling?
Anyways, thanks for sharing and congrats on launching.
Yeah the playground is intended to show many directives to display the capabilities, but I wouldn't recommend making complex apps entirely with the iife version. It's mostly intended for templating (like conditional, iterations, htmx-like op).
The ESM version is better suited for small dynamic apps as you can handle context in a better way, and define helper functions rather than declaring them in a html attribute. It makes the code more readable too and this how you'd be able to achieve a more cohesive app.
As for the eval, it's true the doc advertise against, but maybe I was a bit too harsh about it. The reasoning behind avoiding it is the same as "eval()" in js. It's kind of a "god mode" (like you could do *eval="this.remove()") and it may mess up your final rendering as some internal reference may not be properly cleared if you do niche stuff. If you know what you're doing there's no particular issue with it
The licence seems messed up. You can opt to use an MIT licence, but only if you're noncommercial or you pay. The MIT licence explicitly states that the software is provided free of charge, and can be sublicensed, so anyone with an MIT copy, can give it away for free.
It’s valid. It’s not the MIT license, but it’s not messed up or confused either. It’s just an unusual license.
It means you don’t have to GPL your own code while your project is non-commercial and you aren’t paying for it. If you decided to make your project comercial you could migrate away from it or pay for it. It also seems to have a loophole if you interpret it a certain way and transfer it, because the person agreeing and the person receiving it under the MIT license would be different people.
Not unless they first removed the other part of the license for this mirror, which to me it seems the MIT license allows you to do. That said, I don't think most want to use open source under a loophole. So such a mirror isn't that likely to take off.
Yeah, the more common pattern is to simply ignore the license :)
Can't tell you how many developers I run into who presume anything source-available is fair game, install it with their dependency manager, and move on without even reading the license.
Could you imagine if software companies required legal to review every change to `package.json` or `requirements.txt`?
Yes, I can imagine. We simply don't install packages. And I'm pretty sure there is a whole review process if you do want to install one. And then it gets checked into the monorepo. It does not get to be randomly updated via a package manager, ever.
Yeah maybe I'll look into a simpler licensing as it may indeed be confusing and just drop the requirement, it's not like I really planned to make money with it anyways.
While I doubt this project will ever reach the popularity of projects such as docker, terraform, mondogb, wordpress, corejs, and many others, I'd like to avoid having issues that they encountered later due to their licensing.
Basically having companies that could afford to contribute and help maintainers but that choose to not do it just for pure greed, while keeping it free for everyone else that continue to make open project or just non-profit/personal use case.
As I'm no legal expert, the intention may not have been very clear in the wording though
On the bright side, you need to pay only $1+, if you are using it commercially. Seems a reasonable ask and a nice way to support the development. Interesting approach to licensing indeed, but I wouldn't call it messed up. It's just new.
Yeah, you probably don't want to license under MIT for proprietary use cases. You could take inspiration from the Qt project for how they do this.
It takes one "non-commercial" project to release their code and people can use the MIT licensed version without restriction.
The concept of non-commercial itself is shady: what if someone releases something non commercially, and then someone else uses it commercially?
You probably want to get rid of this, it's complex to understand and to apply. You could have:
- an AGPLv3 version that open source projects will be able to use (commercially or not, there are many successful commercial open source projects)
- a custom proprietary license that someone can use only if they pay, and de facto their project cannot be open source
Of course, this also means that your code can't be used by projects that want to be released under the MIT license. People will need to release under the AGPLv3.
You should be able to use qnames (foo:bar) for attributes, I think? The problem with data-* is that it's misuse, template directives aren't really data. E.g. something might actually use data-if, which would probably collide with a template directive.
There's no way writing illegal HTML is preferable to writing legal HTML.
Here's what the HTML spec[1] says about data-* attributes:
Custom data attributes are intended to store custom data, state, annotations, and similar, private to the page or application, for which there are no more appropriate attributes or elements.
Doesn't sound like this would be an abuse of even their specified intended purpose, sounds totally within the realm of why the feature exists in the first place: author-defined extensibility within the language.
Using qualified names is actually it good idea (similar to svg there could be a custom namespace for mizu)
It'll kind of solve the previous commenter concerns about with writing invalid html. While namespaces are more a xml thing, there are probably many benefits to this approach like querying all attributes from the namespace at once too.
Then your product becomes more complicated and your requirements for data handling outgrow what a tool like mizu can offer.
Then you are facing a choice: Redo everything in a more scalable and expensive (as in dev training, qe needs) framework/library or stick with that you have?
I think rather the issue being new library popping up is more about choosing the right tool for the right project.
If you know that your project is going to be small-scaled (a MVP or POC, a blog, a UI for your home lab, a static website, etc.) then mizu and tools alike may be a good choice.
If you know that you eventually want to have thousands of customers, with hundreds of collaborators, then it might indeed be not the best fit. Going with a more "common" framework like the big name React and Vue is probably better.
Web dev nowadays offer a wide range of application, so everyone needs is different so a one-size-fits-all framework/library is almost impossible to achieve in my opinion
My personal first experience with this was Riot.js. Ultimately, I still enjoyed using it, but writing large applications in micro frameworks is hard: it feels like either the micro framework grows substantially and starts to lose its original appeal, or your application grows framework-like limbs and suddenly the appeal of using a micro-framework is somewhat diminished.
I would guess the only real way out is to always carefully constrain your scope and keep your application as simple as possible. Easier said than done...
Do you have specific reasons why this would be true of Mizu?
It's certainly possible to build sufficiently rich data handling and modularization into HTML, and to make seamless integration between HTML and components and JS.
The fact that plain HTML can be extended with custom elements already means that just about any HTML system can be decomposed so that the the most complex things are encapsulated behind components.
> In summary, mizu.js is free for open-source and non-commercial projects, while a small contribution is required for commercial closed-source projects to support its development.
That's... weird.
I've evaluated front-end frameworks in the past and considered both free (open source and no cost) against commercial. I can't explain why, but the mandatory donation for commercial use just rubs me the wrong way.
Perhaps I can explain it this way: If I'm doing a hobby/learning project, there's no obstacle to using Mizu. But, if I'm a rank-and-file employee, experimenting, setting up the $1 / month donation is actually a huge obstacle. It's not the cost, it's the actual act of handling money. Furthermore, Mizu will need a lot of paying customers for the monthly donations to actually pay for anything substantial.
Personally, I would think more carefully about how to derive income from Mizu.
Right, $1 / month is not worth the overhead to enterprise customers. My understanding is that many would rather find a $10,000 / month solution that has all the bells and whistles--and a support contract!
Is there an uncanny valley between free and enterprise--or is that actually a fertile long tail?
I recently used it in a legacy site. I had forgotten most of it but I remembered enough. Turns out knockout introduced components, around 2015 or so.
Yeah, actual components like you’d encounter with any modern framework/library like React.
It has some nuances but they are pretty much real components, and I was able to make some pretty advanced functionality in an otherwise typical spaghetti code disaster.
Even wrote unit tests for it. People were in disbelief any of this was even possible.
Turns out that while modern patterns and tooling go a long way, they you still need to put effort into making quality software of any kind.
> People were in disbelief any of this was even possible.
Maybe my memory is that bad now in my old(er) age. But at that point in 2015, React had been a thing for about 2 years already. Ember had components even earlier than that in 2011/2012. Using components generally was a pretty well-accepted pattern from my recollection. The wars between the frameworks were all centered around render performance rather than APIs (i.e. which virtual DOM was best? do you even need a virtual DOM? etc.)
Not taking anything away from knockout per se, more just gut checking my own understanding/remembrance of that dark age.
I like the focus on simplicity, but I really wish frontend frameworks and libraries would stop abusing HTML.
Markup should only contain content and presentation. If it needs to be templated, then that's best done using a separate syntax.
If we need functionality, then that's the domain of JavaScript and programming languages.
We learned the importance of semantic HTML decades ago when we stopped using style elements and left this exclusively to CSS.
Separation of concerns is important. Yet modern frameworks insist on blurring these lines for some reason, and we end up with bastardized syntax, writing JS inline in attribute values, and cramming dozens of utility classes to style a single element (Tailwind is an abomination).
I don't mind frameworks that embrace components while keeping this separation clear. I think Svelte does a pretty good job at that, or at least it does a good job at hiding the magic it does to achieve this illusion from the developer. But from my limited exposure to Vue, React and Angular, these are not frameworks we should take inspiration from, and mizu looks even more jarring than those.
What did React do wrong? None of the custom props are rendered into the DOM. They had one quirk in the early days where they used HTML comments to keep track of things, but even that they removed.
Like I said, my experience with frontend frameworks/libraries is limited, so I could be wrong. I last used React nearly a decade ago, Svelte a couple of years ago, and Vue quite recently. Vue does seem like the worst offender in what I'm talking about, with the `v-if`/`v-else` shenanigans. And Mizu being mostly inspired by Vue takes this a step further.
My issue is not whether the custom props are rendered into the DOM, but about the developer experience. Svelte, for example, has separate templating syntax and generally tries to keep things isolated, even if it's ultimately all compiled to JS.
We decided to move away because PHP, JSP, etc was a mess with SQL codes and all other kind of form validation,etc code embedded into the pages together with CSS,etc. Yes it was a mess.
However, IMHO people have gone overboard with layering in so many places creating spaghetti projects that makes troubleshooting feel like goto riddled Basic of old.
In my view Vue's v-if / v-for / v-else is solidly for binding the viewmodel semantics, trying to separate it would require adding id's or some other way of connecting data to view production for no extra reason other than to specify that a list should be duplicated elements?
Wrote a small Vue page/app recently and this pragmatism really helped keep is small yet quite clean, HTML(with some small pieces of Vue markup), CSS and JS in each place. Would the project need to grow it'd be fairly easy to separate parts out into components but there wasn't even a need due to the small size.
React doesn't have any of that v-if/v-else crap, and it's one of the reasons I gravitated towards it. I don't like the fake attributes because it feels like an abuse of HTML, a risk if there's ever a collision because something was added to the living standard, and also, and this is mind-boggling bad to me, at least in the early days of Angular you could actually see the unparsed templating garbage on the page before the library kicked in and re-rendered.
The DX on React is quite nice. You had to do a bit of extra stuff to squeeze out a bit more performance by memoing stuff, but that's finally supposed to be fixed in React 19. And it's not like that perf was free if you did everything by hand anyway, that just required you to handroll clever batch DOM updates.
Can you talk about why separation of concerns is useful? I like it too, but I have a hard time trying to articulate why I prefer it over keeping everything in the same file. I've started working in a project that uses react and tailwind, and I've gotten pretty comfortable, but (ideological purity aside) it just isn't very enjoyable to use.
It's the contextual clarity for me. If I want to change the content, I can keep a specific syntax in mind and focus only on that. Same for JavaScript and CSS. I don't have to think about all of these things at once, but only at the boundaries where they interact with each other. Every component has a separate responsibility and they're composed in a specific way, but keeping them separate allows you to reason about them easier. This is similar to the Single Responsibility Principle.
Specialization is another aspect. Take this example from the mizu docs:
<div %http="https://example.com">
That is supposed to make a `fetch()` call. OK, great, so how do I make a POST request? Oh, with a `.post` "modifier". OK, great, so how do I specify the body? Oh, with a `%body` directive. OK, great, but what if I want to use a different encoding than the ones provided by the library? How about binary data? How about sending a specific header based on a condition, or interpreting the response in a specific way?
There are thousands of these questions and possible limitations and pitfalls that just wouldn't exist if the library didn't try to reinvent JavaScript in HTML. Just use the right tool for the job that is already specialized for what you're trying to do, and your task will be much easier.
BTW, I don't mind having components that contain JS, CSS and HTML in the same file. Svelte does this and I enjoyed using it. My problem is when these are mixed, or when CSS is entirely abandoned in favor of thousands of micro utility classes like Tailwind does.
I appreciate the no-build-step approach. It’s refreshing to see a return to simplicity, even if it feels cyclical—similar libraries have come and gone, but that’s how the web evolves. As browsers continue to improve and embrace web standards, it makes sense to lean into tools that trend toward minimalism and simplicity. Great job!
I love that this lets you create custom elements! I think that's a big missing feature from HTMX (even though HTMX can already use custom elements).
I'm working on a somewhat similar system called Heximal. It focuses on adding full-fledged templating to the <template> element, and full declarative component definitions to HTML, plus some built-in custom elements like <h-var>, <h-out>, <h-scope>, <h-include>, and <h-fetch> that make HTML more of a declarative programming language.
A big difference from HTMX is that it doesn't rely on magic attributes, but instead adds full data-binding with rich expressions for any attribute or text content, and control flow, to <template>. And component definitions include defining properties, attributes, styles, etc.
These things are being proposed for HTML, so Heximal is somewhat of a polyfill for HTML from the future. Or it's a bit like Tangle or Curvenote.
https://github.com/elematic/heximal/
I’m so glad you’re still working on this, I hadn’t seen any updates in the repo lately and wasn’t sure if you changed focus areas or something.
Thanks. I'm working on a few things. I'll get back to Heximal soon!
Does it implement the proposed Declarative Custom Element spec with slice templating?
https://github.com/EPA-WG/custom-element
There is no declarative custom element spec yet. Just a bunch of discussions.
I love the information architecture of this site. You jump right in to demonstration code and a reference and only later the marketing text. So refreshing. I can see at a glance what the project is and what makes it different. Kudos!
Thanks! It's always hard to find a nice balance between explaining your project and showing how it actually work
Here is an alternative without the funky license
https://data-star.dev
Interesting license:
This project is dual-licensed.
You may use this project under the terms of the MIT License for non-commercial projects OR as long as you are sponsoring this project through GitHub sponsors with a monthly minimum donation of 1 (one) dollar using the link below:
You may use this project free of charge under the terms of the GNU Affero v3.Via https://github.com/lowlighter/mizu?tab=readme-ov-file#-licen...
The documentation was a pretty interesting read until "AGPLv3".
heh. "use it on the server" ... oops, you triggered the networking clause of the AGPL, and now your entire backend is open source.
Well yeah, but what’s the downside?
If you have any MIT licensed libraries, it isn't compatible. Nor are the LGPL, BSD, or Apache licenses. So, there are a lot of downsides to accidentally using this license.
Not sure about MIT, but it’s not true for anything else: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati...
That's true for the GPL -- we are talking about the _A_GPL. Furthermore, on that page, it even says the Affero GPL IS NOT compatible with GPLv3.
Yeah this sucks I was excited for until I saw this too. Guess I’ll stick with HTMX or datastar
This is AWESOME We need more of this kind of innovation and less React and Node bloat. Love the simplicity here, thank you.
EDIT: never mind the license killed it for me. Cool innovation but unusable with its AGPLv3 license.
Really cool work, congrats!
I built my own frontend framework for similar reasons: https://github.com/fresho-dev/mancha. It was meant to adress the lack of lightweight solutions that worked both on the frontend and the backend. The main goal was to start with client side rendering and, only if you reach the point where you need it, switch to server side rendering. It also includes a drop in replacement for TailwindCSS except it won't yell at you for doing everything client side.
What I really wanted was a better maintained version of PetiteVue. But that highlights another problem: I simply can't trust anyone in the frontend JavaScript ecosystem, I've been burned too many times. It took a while to get to the point of it being usable, but now I know no one can pull the rug from under me. I use only the most basic APIs possible, only 1-2 third party dependencies, and as little hacks as possible.
It still has a few warts here and there but I hope to be able to call it a 1.0 stable version soon enough.
Mancha looks awesome, will follow the repo! Hope to see it reach v1.
Get it? Because mizu means water in Japanese?
In Hungarian, mizujs means "what's up", and it's often shortened to mizu, so, having a mizu.js JavaScript library would be a pretty cool name (for us who understand Hungarian).
https://glosbe.com/hu/en/mizujs
Maybe it'd feel weird for a native speaker to have something named "Water", but it does sound cool.
But that's also related to another project of mine, matcha (which is a kind of tea) which is a semantic css stylesheet.
Both were designed as a mini-ecosystem, kind like how you would put tea in your water
it'd be as weird as mizu if it were just named cha/ocha
I mean, we have stuff called “windows”, “word”…
“Water” is as good a name as any other. Congrats on your work, I look forward to testing it out this weekend!
The Japanese name makes it cool and fancy :).
Reminds me of hibiki html (now dead)
https://www.hibikihtml.com
And kind of like Imba:
https://imba.io
A related thread about half a year ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40455944
I actually really love this, and have been wanting something like this for a while. Excited to give it a try.
Same until I saw the AGPLv3 license or forced subscription.
Looks like they completely switched to MIT based on all the feedback.
Oh you’re right! That’s exciting, I can’t wait to use it. Just starred the repo and will be taking it for a spin on my next project. Glad the author listened to the feedback here, I think it positions the library for way more usage.
It reminds me of vue templates. I’d love to see some benchmarks comparing it with react jsx and vue/nuxt, both for server-side and client-side. Thanks!
Caught 1 typo and 1 broken link on the site in case you'd like to fix: https://triplechecker.com/s/477573/mizu.sh
Vue is still recognizable as HTML, and to me looks more like HTML than JSX. This looks less like HTML to me than either Vue or JSX. It reminds me of Marko. Marko still looks messy to me after having tried to get into it, but YMMV.
It's because it's mostly based on the vue syntax short hands (@ for event, # for slots and : for attribute bindings, :: was also proposed at a time for model in vue too but it was still being discussed last time i checked)
Rather than using a v- prefix like vue has, mizu uses *, but it's essentially the same.
All in all, I feel like it's still pretty close to what vue offers, at least when you plug it directly to your html page without passing by the component/composition way of writing vue.
I took a lot from vue (maybe more petite-vue at this point) and alpine to make mizu actually
I have created a templating system in Java that uses the Vue syntax. Many of the common features are present. To minimize dependency, I chose to use Java's built-in XML parser to parse the template. Which means, the template has to be a valid XML. I've been using it mainly to generate email content.
https://github.com/bibhas2/Zippy
Thanks for catching this, I'll look into it!
The site is well organized and the information flows smoothly, nice job.
but what is the cons here???? anything you mention about the pros, there must be cost to make right??
after fast skimming it, I found its gonna be hard to separate concern when build interactive UI
It is a simple lib for simple things. If you need more, there exists "hundreds" of frameworks for more.
Slick looking website, novel and relatively intuitive DSL, solid documentation!
Parsing the playground demo was a fun scavenger hunt! Too fun... it took me several minutes to find `(coins += income)` at the line break. For me, it's difficult to scan for "code" that's in-lined as strings. That <progress/> eval, especially, is a doozy!
> Use this [eval] directive sparingly, prefer alternative directives for better maintainability and security. This directive is intended for edge cases.
Oh, and yet *eval is the heart and soul of the demo? In fact, it looks like the principal action--creating buildings--is performed by... the progress bar? That's low-cohesion and high-coupling if I've ever seen it.
I would want to know: what are the Mizu ways of modularizing code to increase cohesion and decrease coupling?
Anyways, thanks for sharing and congrats on launching.
Write a class or function closure similar to Vue composables.
It's not really the framework or library's job of making your code more modular; that's your job by writing good code.
Yes, I know that it's my job to write good code. What I'm wondering is how must I design modules to accommodate this framework?
I guess what's not immediately clear to me is what's in scope for eg eval. I'll have to dig into the docs more than I have.
there are libraries/frameworks that make that practically hard though
Yeah the playground is intended to show many directives to display the capabilities, but I wouldn't recommend making complex apps entirely with the iife version. It's mostly intended for templating (like conditional, iterations, htmx-like op).
The ESM version is better suited for small dynamic apps as you can handle context in a better way, and define helper functions rather than declaring them in a html attribute. It makes the code more readable too and this how you'd be able to achieve a more cohesive app.
As for the eval, it's true the doc advertise against, but maybe I was a bit too harsh about it. The reasoning behind avoiding it is the same as "eval()" in js. It's kind of a "god mode" (like you could do *eval="this.remove()") and it may mess up your final rendering as some internal reference may not be properly cleared if you do niche stuff. If you know what you're doing there's no particular issue with it
https://mavo.io is another similar idea
The licence seems messed up. You can opt to use an MIT licence, but only if you're noncommercial or you pay. The MIT licence explicitly states that the software is provided free of charge, and can be sublicensed, so anyone with an MIT copy, can give it away for free.
That alone makes me not want to use it. Licensing has to be clean and clear for it to have any chance with me.
It’s valid. It’s not the MIT license, but it’s not messed up or confused either. It’s just an unusual license.
It means you don’t have to GPL your own code while your project is non-commercial and you aren’t paying for it. If you decided to make your project comercial you could migrate away from it or pay for it. It also seems to have a loophole if you interpret it a certain way and transfer it, because the person agreeing and the person receiving it under the MIT license would be different people.
Couldn't someone just download it from some third party mirror and use it under the MIT license?
Not unless they first removed the other part of the license for this mirror, which to me it seems the MIT license allows you to do. That said, I don't think most want to use open source under a loophole. So such a mirror isn't that likely to take off.
Yeah, the more common pattern is to simply ignore the license :)
Can't tell you how many developers I run into who presume anything source-available is fair game, install it with their dependency manager, and move on without even reading the license.
Could you imagine if software companies required legal to review every change to `package.json` or `requirements.txt`?
Yes, I can imagine. We simply don't install packages. And I'm pretty sure there is a whole review process if you do want to install one. And then it gets checked into the monorepo. It does not get to be randomly updated via a package manager, ever.
Yeah maybe I'll look into a simpler licensing as it may indeed be confusing and just drop the requirement, it's not like I really planned to make money with it anyways.
While I doubt this project will ever reach the popularity of projects such as docker, terraform, mondogb, wordpress, corejs, and many others, I'd like to avoid having issues that they encountered later due to their licensing.
Basically having companies that could afford to contribute and help maintainers but that choose to not do it just for pure greed, while keeping it free for everyone else that continue to make open project or just non-profit/personal use case.
As I'm no legal expert, the intention may not have been very clear in the wording though
It's certainly confusing as presented, both for MIT-plus-restrictions, and the dual licensing.
For a lawyer's opinion on those two things, see:
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/01/21/MIT-for-Noncommerc...
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/10/Two-Kinds-Dual-Lic...
On the bright side, you need to pay only $1+, if you are using it commercially. Seems a reasonable ask and a nice way to support the development. Interesting approach to licensing indeed, but I wouldn't call it messed up. It's just new.
New is an immediate "nope" to a whole lot of people when it comes to legal risk.
It's messed up if it's not legally enforceable.
Yeah, you probably don't want to license under MIT for proprietary use cases. You could take inspiration from the Qt project for how they do this.
It takes one "non-commercial" project to release their code and people can use the MIT licensed version without restriction.
The concept of non-commercial itself is shady: what if someone releases something non commercially, and then someone else uses it commercially?
You probably want to get rid of this, it's complex to understand and to apply. You could have:
- an AGPLv3 version that open source projects will be able to use (commercially or not, there are many successful commercial open source projects)
- a custom proprietary license that someone can use only if they pay, and de facto their project cannot be open source
Of course, this also means that your code can't be used by projects that want to be released under the MIT license. People will need to release under the AGPLv3.
Yeah, that's a mess. The MIT license thing with additional limits just doesn't make sense.
I suggest licensing under both AGPL and an existing, documented source-available license - maybe BUSL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License
I wish it didn't require authors to practice doing the wrong thing (writing invalid HTML) for to use the tool.
Authors are free to either create any data-* attributes they wish for any purpose, so long as the custom attributes are prefixed with "data-".
Authors are also free to create any (valid) HTML custom element, and to invent custom attributes for those elements.
But this appears to require authors to write invalid HTML.
You should be able to use qnames (foo:bar) for attributes, I think? The problem with data-* is that it's misuse, template directives aren't really data. E.g. something might actually use data-if, which would probably collide with a template directive.
There's no way writing illegal HTML is preferable to writing legal HTML.
Here's what the HTML spec[1] says about data-* attributes:
Doesn't sound like this would be an abuse of even their specified intended purpose, sounds totally within the realm of why the feature exists in the first place: author-defined extensibility within the language.1: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#embedding-cu...
Using qualified names is actually it good idea (similar to svg there could be a custom namespace for mizu)
It'll kind of solve the previous commenter concerns about with writing invalid html. While namespaces are more a xml thing, there are probably many benefits to this approach like querying all attributes from the namespace at once too.
I'll keep this in mind for future iterations!
We've been down this road before many times.
On adoption things are simple and clean.
Then your product becomes more complicated and your requirements for data handling outgrow what a tool like mizu can offer.
Then you are facing a choice: Redo everything in a more scalable and expensive (as in dev training, qe needs) framework/library or stick with that you have?
Choose carefully.
I think rather the issue being new library popping up is more about choosing the right tool for the right project.
If you know that your project is going to be small-scaled (a MVP or POC, a blog, a UI for your home lab, a static website, etc.) then mizu and tools alike may be a good choice.
If you know that you eventually want to have thousands of customers, with hundreds of collaborators, then it might indeed be not the best fit. Going with a more "common" framework like the big name React and Vue is probably better.
Web dev nowadays offer a wide range of application, so everyone needs is different so a one-size-fits-all framework/library is almost impossible to achieve in my opinion
My personal first experience with this was Riot.js. Ultimately, I still enjoyed using it, but writing large applications in micro frameworks is hard: it feels like either the micro framework grows substantially and starts to lose its original appeal, or your application grows framework-like limbs and suddenly the appeal of using a micro-framework is somewhat diminished.
I would guess the only real way out is to always carefully constrain your scope and keep your application as simple as possible. Easier said than done...
Do you have specific reasons why this would be true of Mizu?
It's certainly possible to build sufficiently rich data handling and modularization into HTML, and to make seamless integration between HTML and components and JS.
The fact that plain HTML can be extended with custom elements already means that just about any HTML system can be decomposed so that the the most complex things are encapsulated behind components.
> In summary, mizu.js is free for open-source and non-commercial projects, while a small contribution is required for commercial closed-source projects to support its development.
That's... weird.
I've evaluated front-end frameworks in the past and considered both free (open source and no cost) against commercial. I can't explain why, but the mandatory donation for commercial use just rubs me the wrong way.
(And don't get me wrong, I've published my own basic HTML templating library here: https://www.npmjs.com/package/pogon.html)
Perhaps I can explain it this way: If I'm doing a hobby/learning project, there's no obstacle to using Mizu. But, if I'm a rank-and-file employee, experimenting, setting up the $1 / month donation is actually a huge obstacle. It's not the cost, it's the actual act of handling money. Furthermore, Mizu will need a lot of paying customers for the monthly donations to actually pay for anything substantial.
Personally, I would think more carefully about how to derive income from Mizu.
Right, $1 / month is not worth the overhead to enterprise customers. My understanding is that many would rather find a $10,000 / month solution that has all the bells and whistles--and a support contract!
Is there an uncanny valley between free and enterprise--or is that actually a fertile long tail?
> enterprise customers
Even small customers, too. Think of an early startup or small company trying to decide what their stack will be.
The hassle of a $1 / month donation is "more work" than spending $250 / seat for a 1-year contract with some amount of support.
Yeah, consider I need to go through a 6 month long process to get my company to purchase it.
I need to really love it to do so (and in the one instance I did) I need to have been able to use it in that corporate setting before that point.
Feels like knockoutjs, i recall using it 10 years ago. It was all so simple back then.
I recently used it in a legacy site. I had forgotten most of it but I remembered enough. Turns out knockout introduced components, around 2015 or so.
Yeah, actual components like you’d encounter with any modern framework/library like React.
It has some nuances but they are pretty much real components, and I was able to make some pretty advanced functionality in an otherwise typical spaghetti code disaster.
Even wrote unit tests for it. People were in disbelief any of this was even possible.
Turns out that while modern patterns and tooling go a long way, they you still need to put effort into making quality software of any kind.
I used Knockout.js professionally for many years. It definitely has its warts, but I was very productive with it.
Apparently, they even have a v4 reboot: https://www.tko.io/
> People were in disbelief any of this was even possible.
Maybe my memory is that bad now in my old(er) age. But at that point in 2015, React had been a thing for about 2 years already. Ember had components even earlier than that in 2011/2012. Using components generally was a pretty well-accepted pattern from my recollection. The wars between the frameworks were all centered around render performance rather than APIs (i.e. which virtual DOM was best? do you even need a virtual DOM? etc.)
Not taking anything away from knockout per se, more just gut checking my own understanding/remembrance of that dark age.
I read it as "were in disbelief that this was even possible [in knockout]".
I've been using React templating lately, then you get a lot of cool features like Tailwind and can even use React for your email templates:
https://react.email/docs/introduction
It helps me ship faster when I use the same stack everywhere. I even ported my background task library to TypeScript so to keep the stack the same:
https://github.com/wakatime/wakaq-ts
I have a 60 LOC [bash script][1] to do something similar to my personal blog
[1]: https://github.com/alexandremcosta/alexandremcosta.github.io...
I like the focus on simplicity, but I really wish frontend frameworks and libraries would stop abusing HTML.
Markup should only contain content and presentation. If it needs to be templated, then that's best done using a separate syntax.
If we need functionality, then that's the domain of JavaScript and programming languages.
We learned the importance of semantic HTML decades ago when we stopped using style elements and left this exclusively to CSS.
Separation of concerns is important. Yet modern frameworks insist on blurring these lines for some reason, and we end up with bastardized syntax, writing JS inline in attribute values, and cramming dozens of utility classes to style a single element (Tailwind is an abomination).
I don't mind frameworks that embrace components while keeping this separation clear. I think Svelte does a pretty good job at that, or at least it does a good job at hiding the magic it does to achieve this illusion from the developer. But from my limited exposure to Vue, React and Angular, these are not frameworks we should take inspiration from, and mizu looks even more jarring than those.
What did React do wrong? None of the custom props are rendered into the DOM. They had one quirk in the early days where they used HTML comments to keep track of things, but even that they removed.
Like I said, my experience with frontend frameworks/libraries is limited, so I could be wrong. I last used React nearly a decade ago, Svelte a couple of years ago, and Vue quite recently. Vue does seem like the worst offender in what I'm talking about, with the `v-if`/`v-else` shenanigans. And Mizu being mostly inspired by Vue takes this a step further.
My issue is not whether the custom props are rendered into the DOM, but about the developer experience. Svelte, for example, has separate templating syntax and generally tries to keep things isolated, even if it's ultimately all compiled to JS.
We decided to move away because PHP, JSP, etc was a mess with SQL codes and all other kind of form validation,etc code embedded into the pages together with CSS,etc. Yes it was a mess.
However, IMHO people have gone overboard with layering in so many places creating spaghetti projects that makes troubleshooting feel like goto riddled Basic of old.
In my view Vue's v-if / v-for / v-else is solidly for binding the viewmodel semantics, trying to separate it would require adding id's or some other way of connecting data to view production for no extra reason other than to specify that a list should be duplicated elements?
Wrote a small Vue page/app recently and this pragmatism really helped keep is small yet quite clean, HTML(with some small pieces of Vue markup), CSS and JS in each place. Would the project need to grow it'd be fairly easy to separate parts out into components but there wasn't even a need due to the small size.
React doesn't have any of that v-if/v-else crap, and it's one of the reasons I gravitated towards it. I don't like the fake attributes because it feels like an abuse of HTML, a risk if there's ever a collision because something was added to the living standard, and also, and this is mind-boggling bad to me, at least in the early days of Angular you could actually see the unparsed templating garbage on the page before the library kicked in and re-rendered.
The DX on React is quite nice. You had to do a bit of extra stuff to squeeze out a bit more performance by memoing stuff, but that's finally supposed to be fixed in React 19. And it's not like that perf was free if you did everything by hand anyway, that just required you to handroll clever batch DOM updates.
Can you talk about why separation of concerns is useful? I like it too, but I have a hard time trying to articulate why I prefer it over keeping everything in the same file. I've started working in a project that uses react and tailwind, and I've gotten pretty comfortable, but (ideological purity aside) it just isn't very enjoyable to use.
It's the contextual clarity for me. If I want to change the content, I can keep a specific syntax in mind and focus only on that. Same for JavaScript and CSS. I don't have to think about all of these things at once, but only at the boundaries where they interact with each other. Every component has a separate responsibility and they're composed in a specific way, but keeping them separate allows you to reason about them easier. This is similar to the Single Responsibility Principle.
Specialization is another aspect. Take this example from the mizu docs:
That is supposed to make a `fetch()` call. OK, great, so how do I make a POST request? Oh, with a `.post` "modifier". OK, great, so how do I specify the body? Oh, with a `%body` directive. OK, great, but what if I want to use a different encoding than the ones provided by the library? How about binary data? How about sending a specific header based on a condition, or interpreting the response in a specific way?There are thousands of these questions and possible limitations and pitfalls that just wouldn't exist if the library didn't try to reinvent JavaScript in HTML. Just use the right tool for the job that is already specialized for what you're trying to do, and your task will be much easier.
BTW, I don't mind having components that contain JS, CSS and HTML in the same file. Svelte does this and I enjoyed using it. My problem is when these are mixed, or when CSS is entirely abandoned in favor of thousands of micro utility classes like Tailwind does.