Web components have become a topic of heated debate within the web development community, often sparking discussions about their future and relevance. Recently, Ryan Carniato's assertion that "Web Components Are Not the Future" was met with a counterpoint from Cory LaViska, who argued that they are indeed "the Present." Nolan Lawson, the author of the blog post, aims to bridge this divide and foster a more constructive dialogue. Lawson acknowledges Carniato's contributions to the web framework ecosystem, particularly in performance and framework design. He appreciates the insights shared in Carniato's post but believes there are some misconceptions regarding web components. He emphasizes that while performance is a critical aspect of web development, it is not the sole consideration. Other factors such as maintainability, security, usability, and accessibility also play significant roles in software development. Lawson argues that sometimes trade-offs must be made, and prioritizing performance at the expense of accessibility, for example, is not a viable approach. He draws a parallel between web performance optimization and speedrunning in video games, suggesting that while some developers may focus on micro-optimizations, the broader context of user experience and functionality should not be overlooked. Lawson believes that while minimizing DOM nodes can enhance performance, it is not always necessary to pursue the absolute fastest option. He also points out that custom elements can coexist with different frameworks, allowing for gradual migrations and the composition of micro-frontends. Addressing the concern about the "cost of standards," Lawson argues that supporting web components does not require excessive effort from framework authors. He believes that adapting to new web standards is part of the job and that developers can still create effective frameworks without being hindered by the introduction of new technologies. He acknowledges that some in the web development community may not be interested in web components, but he sees this diversity as a strength rather than a limitation. In conclusion, Lawson agrees with Carniato that web components have their limitations, particularly in areas like server-side rendering and accessibility. However, he also sees value in their use and encourages developers to explore the possibilities they offer. He emphasizes that the web is a vast landscape filled with diverse projects and approaches, and every new capability can serve as an opportunity for creativity. Ultimately, whether or not web components are the right choice depends on the specific needs and constraints of the project at hand.

Ryan Carniato's article, "Web Components Are Not the Future," presents a critical perspective on the role of Web Components in web development. Carniato reflects on his previous writings, where he cautiously acknowledged the potential of Web Components but expressed concerns about their practicality. Over time, he has come to believe that Web Components may pose significant risks to the future of web development. The article begins by outlining the vision behind Web Components, which aims to create a standardized way to build reusable components that can be integrated seamlessly into any web application, regardless of the underlying framework. This vision is appealing as it promises a more portable and interoperable web, potentially reducing the need for future migrations. However, Carniato argues that this ideal is fraught with challenges. One of the main issues he highlights is the proliferation of competing standards and frameworks in the JavaScript ecosystem. The existence of numerous frameworks indicates a lack of consensus on how to build components, which undermines the very goal of Web Components to provide a unified approach. Carniato points out that while higher-level abstractions can simplify certain tasks, they can also stifle innovation by creating rigid structures that discourage exploration of alternative solutions. Carniato emphasizes the concept of opportunity cost in framework development, noting that design decisions made early on can have long-lasting implications. He illustrates this with the example of React's development, where the introduction of new features often requires significant time and effort to ensure compatibility with existing components. This complexity can hinder progress and lead to a situation where developers feel constrained by the frameworks they use. The article also critiques the fundamental design of Web Components, particularly the reliance on Custom Elements. Carniato argues that while elements can be components, not all components can be reduced to elements. This distinction complicates the interaction between components and the DOM, leading to inconsistencies and unexpected behaviors. He discusses the challenges posed by the Shadow DOM, which can create barriers to styling and event handling, further complicating the developer experience. Carniato raises concerns about the performance overhead associated with Web Components, particularly in server-side rendering (SSR) scenarios. He argues that while SSR is technically feasible with Web Components, it introduces additional complexity and performance costs that may not be justified. The article suggests that as web development evolves, the focus should shift away from rigid component structures towards more flexible and efficient solutions. In conclusion, Carniato acknowledges that while Web Components may offer ergonomic benefits in specific scenarios, the broader implications of their adoption could hinder innovation and complicate the development landscape. He advocates for a more cautious approach to standardization, emphasizing the need for flexibility and adaptability in web development practices. Ultimately, he posits that the promise of Web Components as a universal solution may be more of a mirage than a reality, urging developers to consider the long-term consequences of their choices in the evolving web ecosystem.