HTMX and Alpine are two low-overhead ways to empower your front end. Neither requires a build step, and both let you add Ajax-style API calls and client-side UI updates with minimal fuss. While the two technologies differ in approach, neither gets in its own way (or yours), and you can use them together. What’s not to like?
Overview of Alpine and HTMX
Both HTMX and Alpine are founded on a core idea, and both are admirably focused on that one central mission. For HTMX, the mission could be summarized as: Make the web follow true RESTful design by allowing HTML to do basic Ajax and fine-grained view updates with HTML attributes. For Alpine, it’s: Put state and reactivity into a tiny package that can fit into HTML attributes.
It’s clear from these statements what the frameworks have in common: They both use HTML attributes as their key mechanism. In my opinion, this is an excellent approach because HTML is so ubiquitous in web development. At the end of the day, you’ll always have to write some HTML (or HTML-like JSX, or something like it). HTML is the structure of the UI, and by decorating it with the behavior you need, you avoid introducing anything extra to think about and manage.
What about the separation of concerns?
A critique of both HTMX and Alpine is that their closeness to HTML violates the separation of concerns, which encourages separating the view from the behavior. I don’t have beef with this in principle, especially for larger, more heavily architected apps. But in the case of HTMX, I don’t think the criticism holds much weight because it’s really just an extension of HTML. (Besides, as I’ve said before, I believe it’s only a matter of time before HTMX is adopted into HTML.)
Alpine also appears to be something of an extension of HTML. Except, in the case of Alpine, you are dealing directly with JavaScript, which is contained within the HTML attributes. In this case, your HTML knows how to speak JavaScript.
The deciding question here is whether the tool meets your project’s needs. If your key requirement is to get Ajax and some modest dynamic UI interactions going with as little overhead as possible, you really owe it to yourself to consider both of these libraries.
Using Alpine and HTMX together
Before I stop rapping, and we start looking at code, I should note that you can use Alpine and HTMX together. Consider, for example, using HTMX for what it does best—driving the data from the back end—while letting Alpine handle client-side enhancements (like dropdowns, accordions, and client-side filtering). You could load list data with HTMX and then filter it with Alpine, for example. Combining them also opens the possibility of using HTMX for the simpler Ajax interactions, then dropping into Alpine for more elaborate ones (in cases where HTMX alone isn’t convenient to transform the data on the client).
If you think about HTMX as an extension of HTML, then the combination makes perfect sense: You are basically using HTML with an extension, then adding Alpine for some extra power within a small footprint.
Where’s the state?
In HTMX, state lives on the server. HTMX gets chunks of HTML representing that state from the server. (This is actually the essence of REST and HATEOAS, worthy side trails to explore in deepening an understanding of how the web works.) HTMX uses attributes that initiate background (Ajax) requests and then updates the UI with the response. Here’s a simple example of using x-get:
In this case, the response could look something like this:
Get Up, Stand Up
Wildflowers
To the Sea
When that arrives at the client, HTMX will put it into position, giving you a server-driven view of the state.
In Alpine, you might also have state on the server, but you have state on the client, as well. Here’s how the same example would work using a typical Alpine approach:
For this one, x-data is the attribute that creates the Alpine component and it defines the necessary client-side state (albums) and a bespoke method for fetching the data from the server (fetchAlbums). Notice the view inside the unordered list (the x-for and x-text) to perform an iteration and describe how to output the state to the screen.
The state is held in x-data attributes and Alpine’s job is to take that state and ensure the UI reflects it automatically. The data from the server, as soon as it is received by Alpine’s fetch call, will be rendered by the view. Here’s what the data coming back for this example might look like:
[
{ "id": 1, "name": "The Dark Side of the Moon" },
{ "id": 2, "name": "Kind of Blue" },
{ "id": 3, "name": "Abbey Road" },
{ "id": 4, "name": "Rumours" }
]
When we compare HTMX data with Alpine’s, the difference between REST (where the representation of the state, meaning the view, is transferred) and REST-like (as commonly implemented with JSON APIs) is very clear. HTMX wants to send chunks of the actual view containing the state, and Alpine wants to send chunks of a data format (JSON) and then transform it into a view on the client.
There is no clear right way or “winner” here. But HTMX does have one huge advantage, which is its amazing client-side simplicity. For its part, Alpine offers a high degree of simplicity along with great flexibility. Because Alpine’s attributes are actually JavaScript, you can do anything in JavaScript in Alpine. (There’s also nothing to prevent you from pulling the JavaScript into a script tag if it becomes cumbersome being inlined in the HTML).
When to combine HTMX and Alpine
HTMX wants to be the simplest possible way to use HTML to interact with the server, and it does that very well. It is also remarkably flexible, so don’t be too quick to assume that some requirement is not within HTMX’s bailiwick. Check the HTMX demo page for a set of examples you might not initially think it could handle, including things like infinite scroll, auto-complete input, and client- and server-side field validation. (There’s even a WebSocket extension.)
Of course, the more elaborate your UI interaction, the more complex things become; that’s just the nature of the beast. So, let’s now consider a scenario where HTMX might fall short and where we could incorporate Alpine. You could use a variety of approaches to enhance HTMX’s core abilities, including vanilla JavaScript and its sibling project, Hyperscript, but Alpine makes an excellent choice.
One obvious use case for Alpine on top of HTMX is if you need to fancy up some client-side code:
Combined Example
In this example, we use HTMX to load products based on the selected category. This is a kind of server-side filtering, which HTMX can do all day long, like a champ. But once the products are loaded, we might want to use Alpine to support showing and hiding the product details.
In this particular example, notice that we attach the click handler to the div instead of the individual product items. Those items were sent from the server, and we’d rather not have our client-side Alpine click handler generated on the server because we want to keep our code clean. So our handler pulls the clicked item and uses Alpine’s awesome client-side state support to dynamically show and populate a product detail pane. In this example, we just do a simple event.target.innerHTML to get the product details. There’s a lot more we could do with this sort of combination, leveraging the strength of each tool.
Using Alpine for JSON data
For a more involved example of using Alpine and HTMX together, think about a case where you need to transform some data upon submission. HTMX is devoted to using HTML-standard data formats, but what if you have an API that wants to consume JSON?
HTMX does have a JSON extension that lets you deal in JSON calls, but if you already are using Alpine, you might want to stick with that. There’s no reason you can’t use HTMX on all those endpoints that can speak HTML, and then drop into Alpine’s fetch mechanism for the JSON endpoints. (See the Alpine.js pages to learn more about data fetching.)
Conclusion
It’s no secret that I’m a fan of both HTMX and Alpine. There is something I’ll call the “weight-to-capability” ratio that goes into software libraries. The ratio is basically how much detail you have to add to your project and brain versus how much you can do with it.
Both HTMX and Alpine are real champions on the weight-to-capability front. If you are open to using a back end that talks HTML, HTMX is a no-brainer. If you need a clean, powerful reactive framework, Alpine is a clear choice. And if you need both, well then, you can just use them together.