My problem with things like this is I don't see the benefit of the abstraction.
admittedly Objectified.render({ tagName:"p", attributes:{ innerHTML:"some nice text" } });
is slightly less verbose than var p = document.createElement("p"); p.appendChild(document.createTextNode("some nice text"));
But both would probably become unwieldy and difficult to manage if you were building a complex document. One benefit to me of having templates which look like actual html is that they make it easier to reason about what the actual document is going to look like. The purely json or "replace tags with significant whitespace" seems to add syntactic sugar without obvious benefit.
Although, again admittedly, if you're more comfortable with those then for you, it's a benefit having everything look the same.
daffl/dform is pretty much the same idea but exclusive to forms... I aim to enable a user to create anything...
And your right, it doesnt add a benefit that would make anyone decide on it... and technically it isnt really syntactical sugar due to the fact that this isnt exclusive to this framework... this is literally the same attributes/properties that creating elements via js gives you... in a way you are more extending if anything...
Although, I would add one thing and that is that the other reason I created such is so everything can be 100% js(trying to think maybe too OO). But I do like that I can create partials in node to include elsewhere if need be...
Also anything still pegged to jquery is kinda ehh in my opinion...
But Thank you very much krapp for the comment...
Though, I would argue, at a javascript level that is what is happening... when you create a DOM, it can be broken down into a JSON data structure...
document.body.attributes returns all attributes... document.body.children/childNodes returns an array of objects(and nodes depending if you use childNodes)...
Just wondering... I didn't like that term either though to be honest... Thank you icedchai...
