coop/rose-ash
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Rename all 1,169 components to path-based names with namespace support

Browse Source 
Component names now reflect filesystem location using / as path separator
and : as namespace separator for shared components:
  ~sx-header → ~layouts/header
  ~layout-app-body → ~shared:layout/app-body
  ~blog-admin-dashboard → ~admin/dashboard

209 files, 4,941 replacements across all services.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
giles
2026-03-12 22:00:12 +00:00
parent de80d921e9
commit b0920a1121
209 changed files with 4620 additions and 4620 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
sx/sx/essays/why-sexps.sx
View File

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
(defcomp ~essay-why-sexps ()
(~doc-page :title "Why S-Expressions Over HTML Attributes" (~doc-section :title "The problem with HTML attributes" :id "problem" (p :class "text-stone-600" "HTML attributes are strings. You can put anything in a string. htmx puts DSLs in strings — trigger modifiers, swap strategies, CSS selectors. This works but it means you're parsing a language within a language within a language.") (p :class "text-stone-600" "S-expressions are already structured. Keywords are keywords. Lists are lists. Nested expressions nest naturally. There's no need to invent a trigger modifier syntax because the expression language already handles composition.")) (~doc-section :title "Components without a build step" :id "components" (p :class "text-stone-600" "React showed that components are the right abstraction for UI. The price: a build step, a bundler, JSX transpilation. With s-expressions, defcomp is just another form in the language. No transpiler needed. The same source runs on server and client.")) (~doc-section :title "When attributes are better" :id "better" (p :class "text-stone-600" "HTML attributes work in any HTML document. S-expressions need a runtime. If you want progressive enhancement that works with JS disabled, htmx is better. If you want to write HTML by hand in static files, htmx is better. sx only makes sense when you're already rendering server-side and want components."))))
(defcomp ~essays/why-sexps/essay-why-sexps ()
(~docs/page :title "Why S-Expressions Over HTML Attributes" (~docs/section :title "The problem with HTML attributes" :id "problem" (p :class "text-stone-600" "HTML attributes are strings. You can put anything in a string. htmx puts DSLs in strings — trigger modifiers, swap strategies, CSS selectors. This works but it means you're parsing a language within a language within a language.") (p :class "text-stone-600" "S-expressions are already structured. Keywords are keywords. Lists are lists. Nested expressions nest naturally. There's no need to invent a trigger modifier syntax because the expression language already handles composition.")) (~docs/section :title "Components without a build step" :id "components" (p :class "text-stone-600" "React showed that components are the right abstraction for UI. The price: a build step, a bundler, JSX transpilation. With s-expressions, defcomp is just another form in the language. No transpiler needed. The same source runs on server and client.")) (~docs/section :title "When attributes are better" :id "better" (p :class "text-stone-600" "HTML attributes work in any HTML document. S-expressions need a runtime. If you want progressive enhancement that works with JS disabled, htmx is better. If you want to write HTML by hand in static files, htmx is better. sx only makes sense when you're already rendering server-side and want components."))))