-
A JavaScript library.
-
Embraces hypermedia controls.
-
Is it client-side or server-side? :
-
HTMX waits for a server response before updating the DOM.
-
It does not pre-render or simulate changes locally. Every interaction that uses
hx-get,hx-post, etc. involves a network round trip. The latency depends on server and network speed. -
Every interaction still depends on the server. Complex client logic still requires JS.
-
-
When to use it :
-
The HTMX’s purpose is to make hypermedia applications dynamic without a SPA stack .
-
Consider when:
-
You want progressive enhancement.
-
You want to scale from static HTML to interactive components gradually.
-
You prefer server-side rendering and logic centralization.
-
-
Static sites gain almost nothing from HTMX.
-
HTMX is meant for server-rendered web apps that need partial interactivity but don’t justify a client framework.
-
Examples:
-
Inline CRUD operations in admin dashboards.
-
Updating a comment section after submission.
-
Live search results or pagination without full reloads.
-
-
-
"Technical advantages of HTMX over JS" :
-
None.
-
JavaScript can do everything HTMX does.
-
HTMX does partial DOM replacement automatically via
hx-target. -
Vanilla JS can absolutely do the same thing; you just have to write the code yourself.
-
HTMX is syntactic and architectural sugar . It does not reduce network trips or make DOM updates faster.
-
It’s syntax sugar over JavaScript and
fetch(). -
Bandwidth and latency are identical; performance differences are minimal (tiny parsing/initialization cost of HTMX).
-
-
"Structural advantages of HTMX over JS" :
-
Architecturally, it enforces a different model.
-
It restores hypermedia-driven design — the server defines behavior through HTML responses.
-
It minimizes client-side logic and state, which cuts maintenance cost.
-
It integrates naturally with traditional SSR backends, avoiding SPA complexity.
-
HTMX’s value is that you write and organize far less of it, staying in HTML and server templates instead of managing JS code and build tooling.
-
-
What HTMX actually SOLVES :
-
Caio:
-
HTMX gives ergonomics over a very specific part of working with JS, but it doesn't seem like the part where HTMX helps is actually the part where sites suffer. I mean, I imagine that the real struggles of a site are handling responsiveness through client-side rendering, etc. My point is that I don't see a reason to spend time learning this new framework, which doesn't solve the important problems; it doesn't really solve anything....
-
-
Your conclusion is accurate.
-
HTMX solves a narrow problem: boilerplate around sending AJAX requests and swapping HTML.
-
It does not :
-
Improve responsiveness or reduce latency.
-
Solve client-side state management.
-
Reduce complexity in dynamic UIs with heavy interactivity.
-
Replace SPA frameworks for apps with complex rendering logic.
-
-
Its value is ergonomic and architectural, not technical performance
-
But in practice, for most modern web apps:
-
Real difficulties come from client-side rendering, state synchronization, and interactivity.
-
HTMX does not address these.
-
-
Characteristics
-
AJAX:
-
Declarative AJAX via
hx-get,hx-post, etc.
-
-
"HTMX writes JavaScript, so you don't have to".
-
Server-driven rendering; server returns HTML fragments
-
HTMX works by adding behavior through HTML attributes (
hx-get,hx-post,hx-target, etc.) inside normal markup. -
The HTML stays the primary language; the logic (interactivity, data fetching) is embedded declaratively within it.
-
It’s closer in spirit to Hugo, Jinja, or PHP templates, than to JSX or Svelte.
-
Enables HTML to trigger AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML), WebSocket, or SSE without writing JS
-
Runs directly in the browser.
-
Framework-agnostic, enhances plain HTML.