LiteStar Would be better fit because it have full HTMX support natively.

[v3ss0n]

Have you tried Litestar? It is faster than starlette and it have native HTMX support along with many other features.

[paveldedik]

Thank you for the issue @v3ss0n. I have heard about Litestar but haven't checked it that much yet, only glimpsed I'd say.

I think it would be nice to add optional support (even Starlette is optional). I didn't know it has a native HTMX support, I'll definitely check it out.

[rupurt]

+1 would love to use this with Litestar

[jkatzer]

@paveldedik I think this is a good reason for ludic to:

1. be framework agnostic
2. just handle the concern of type-safe html
3. additionally support htmx in a modular way (but still part of ludic) to show how people can use ludic's type-safe html generation guarantees for any situation of generating html. if it were modular, it could do things like code-generator react components, or even swiftui components.

I think it makes sense for ludic to focus on type-safe generation of html (and possibly other text based GUI structures). it should be easy to support any framework and possibly for people to bring their own.

I think a great example is "Bolt" from Slack. (repo).

It really nails the use case of providing simple abstractions, reducing work for developers and supporting a list of different web frameworks. (It can also run on its own, which I thought you might like). But... it missed the boat on modularity. They could have made it easy to support other chat systems.

[paveldedik]

@jkatzer Yeah, I agree with you. I think it will be my main focus in the following months - improving type-safe html. Integration with other frameworks is lower priority (and somewhat up to the community, if they want it faster). My main focus is building reliable type-safe HTML generator, basically.

Thank you for the link to Bolt, I need to do some research when it comes to modularity, etc.