Pros and Cons and Comparisons
The advantages of Cull Front
The separation of structure (tree), elements (elem), and behavior (HTMX/Alpine) into distinct files is very clever and useful. It's similar to the classic separation of HTML/CSS/JS, but at a higher level of abstraction.
The template system with the special 't' tag and file inclusion via '@' is powerful - it allows for composition without sacrificing readability.
The approach to HTMX/Alpine attributes is particularly valuable. Having all HTMX logic in one place rather than scattered throughout HTML makes it easier to reason about the application's behavior holistically.
The terse syntax and CSV-like format makes it quick to write and modify, while still maintaining structure.
Some cursory tests using the system shows that it can be even 40% to 60% smaller than conventional systems.
There is no Nodejs NPM mess. The program is stand-alone with no dependencies. It is a 32 bit binary executable which processes your files natively. So, extremely fast.
It is agnostic to the SaaS system/static-site system you may be developing. It is not necessary that you have to use HTMX and/or AlpineJS. You can easily use other ways of developing front ends too — however if you do use HTMX and/or AlpineJS (or systems similar to AlpineJS) you would find Cull Front extremely convenient.
The templating system is amenable for becoming a "cottage-industry" by itself. Once Cull Front picks up, I am sure there will be lot of template developers for it.
It is superbly aligned to "kaizen" — you can incrementally and iteratively improve your work. You can leave comments into the files it uses (Start the line with double-slashes for it to become a comment)
It allows partially dynamic templates. That means, you can specify a template file for it to pickup some part of the HTML from; and at the same time, it can dynamically do "magic insertions" into the template string, just-in-time as per your current needs. Explained in the appendix.
Improved Collaboration: The abstract representation of the tree could facilitate better communication and collaboration among designers and developers.
Faster Prototyping: The ability to quickly experiment with different tree structures could accelerate the prototyping process.
The disadvantages of Cull Front
Every element (other than <head> and <body>) needs to have an ID. And all IDs must be unique. I am talking of those IDs that are needed for your code to work. You can easily insert elements without IDs (as they may not be participating in the functionality) using the templating feature. hmmm... so, is this really a disadvantage?
It does a reasonable check for "circular references" in the tree structure. However, fully debugging has not yet been done for this. Let me know your experience.
Some amount of learning is needed. You need to know the concepts of HTML, HTMX and AlpineJS (and similar tech) ... again, is this really a disadvantage? This tool is NOT for beginners. In fact, it can be used by beginners too if they take some effort to learn all those concepts, in parallel.
I can't think of another disadvantage — maybe that itself is a subtle disadvantage: The author is biased! :-) But more seriously: I am open to suggestions. Email me at admin@cullfront.com
Comparisons
Some people thought of other comparable systems such as Pug, HAML, etc. Here is an apt comparison.
Tree Definition
Separate file, logical representation
Indentation-based, visual representation
Flexibility in Tree Order
High, allows for reordering without affecting logic
Limited, changes in indentation can significantly impact structure
Iterative Development
Easier to experiment with different arrangements
Can be more challenging to modify the tree structure iteratively
Abstraction
Higher level of abstraction, focuses on relationships rather than visual structure
Lower level of abstraction, requires more explicit consideration of the visual tree
Last updated