@adamghill I find Unicorn's case very interesting. On a technical level, it's a clear evolution of HTML. It automates processes, eliminates the need to maintain an API, has very good integration with the backend, and has a very clear focus on the developer experience. However, in terms of popularity, it hasn't had the same impact... but I don't think Unicorn is to blame.
My experience, after trying to extend the idea of HTML over Websockets, is that for software to be successful in the developer community, it must be easy to use, understand, integrate with other systems, and read its documentation. HTML ticks all the boxes. You can quickly install and use it, we all understand that it's an HTTP call, and I can use it alongside other frameworks and backends without incompatibilities. Furthermore, the documentation is minimalist; you can read it from top to bottom in 5 minutes. Unicorn, on the other hand, requires a bit more effort to understand how it works, how it integrates with other systems, and how to maintain it. Not because it's a poorly done technology, but because it's more complex with a different approach. So, if we draw a line between a "good" technology that requires work to understand, and a "simple" technology with poor results but is easy to use, HTMX falls somewhere in the middle. Unicorn would be slightly closer to the beginning.
I suppose a niche of experienced seniors using Unicorn is emerging, and on the other hand, a mainstream technology with the HTMX approach. And that's not a bad thing; it's just how the market works.
#unicorn #htmx #django #python