The web development world in 2025 looks different than it did two years ago. HTMX added 16.8k GitHub stars in 2024 alone, beating React by over 4k stars in the JavaScript Rising Stars “Front-end Frameworks” category.
JavaScript fatigue is driving developers to seek alternatives. Your developers are tired of framework churn, build tool complexity, and managing state synchronisation between client and server. React’s baseline bundle sits at 42KB before you even add routing or state management. HTMX? 14KB. No bundler required. No transpilation. No Webpack hell.
This article lays out what HTMX actually is, how it differs from React, and why it’s a genuine architectural alternative for server-rendered applications that need interactivity. We’ll cover the hypermedia philosophy, HATEOAS principles, and whether this renaissance is real or just another tech meme.
What Is HTMX and How Does It Work?
HTMX is a JavaScript library that allows developers to access AJAX, WebSockets, CSS Transitions, and Server-Sent Events directly in HTML using attributes. You add attributes like hx-get, hx-post, or hx-swap to HTML elements. HTMX handles the HTTP requests and DOM updates. The server returns HTML fragments that HTMX inserts into your page.
The key difference is this: HTMX generalises hypermedia controls. Historically, only anchor tags and forms could trigger HTTP requests. HTMX lets any element issue requests, use any HTTP method, respond to any event, and target any location in the DOM.
Here’s how it works. Instead of building a React component with useState hooks and fetch calls, you write HTML with HTMX attributes. Want a form with real-time validation? Add hx-post="/validate/username" and hx-trigger="blur delay:500ms" to an input field. The server processes the validation and returns HTML showing error messages or success states. HTMX swaps that HTML into the designated target.
Real-time updates work the same way. Use hx-ext="sse" and sse-connect="/cart/updates" for server-sent events that push HTML fragments to update your interface. No JavaScript frameworks. No virtual DOM. Just HTML attributes and server responses.
The architectural implications matter. Servers return HTML fragments, not JSON. There’s no client-side rendering layer. No component lifecycle management. No state synchronisation bugs between client and server. Your backend generates HTML and sends it. HTMX puts it where you specify.
For teams looking to implement these patterns in production, our guide on building modern UIs with HTMX covers the implementation techniques.
The Hypermedia Philosophy—HATEOAS and REST Principles
HATEOAS stands for Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State. It means the server provides navigation controls within responses. Instead of clients constructing URLs and managing state transitions, the server tells the client what actions are available.
Back in 2000, Roy Fielding’s REST dissertation prescribed hypermedia-driven state transitions. Modern JSON APIs abandoned this constraint. They’re labelled “REST” but they’re really just HTTP APIs.
HTMX implements HATEOAS by having servers return HTML with embedded interaction controls. When you request /products/123, the server doesn’t just send product data. It sends HTML that includes buttons, forms, and links representing valid next actions—”Add to cart,” “View similar products,” “Write review.” The client doesn’t need to know these URLs exist. The server provides them based on current application state.
With hypermedia, the server is the source of truth. You make a request. The server responds with the new state. This eliminates bugs around state synchronisation, particularly in applications with multiple users accessing shared data.
Carson Gross positions this as aligned with Backend for Frontend patterns, where application-specific APIs differ from general-purpose data APIs. Hypermedia is more efficient than JSON for delivering UI updates because you’re sending complete, ready-to-render HTML instead of data that clients must transform into DOM updates.
Our architectural comparison examines how these principles translate into performance characteristics.
Why Is HTMX Gaining Popularity in 2025?
The adoption metrics tell the story. HTMX has reportedly surpassed GitHub stars for established frameworks like React, Svelte, and Vue. On Hacker News, you now find htmx in comments on any popular post about web development.
The reasons break down into three areas: developer experience, bundle efficiency, and development simplicity.
Developers fatigued by complex JavaScript ecosystems find HTMX refreshing. They’re tired of framework churn. jQuery to Backbone to Angular to React to Vue to Next.js to Astro. Each transition brings breaking changes, rewritten code, and months of migration work. HTMX’s creators promise stability: “People shouldn’t feel pressure to upgrade htmx over time unless there are specific bugs that they want fixed”. The HTMX you write in 2025 should look the same in 2035.
Bundle size matters. HTMX is 14KB compared to React’s 42KB baseline. And that’s before you add React Router, state management, or any actual functionality. Every kilobyte affects Time to Interactive on mobile networks.
HTMX requires minimal learning and integrates incrementally into existing projects. There’s no Webpack configuration. No Babel transpilation. Your build pipeline becomes simpler or disappears entirely.
Carson Gross’s vision for “100-year web services” emphasises stability over continuous feature expansion. Industry figures like Google’s Paul Kinlan have questioned whether frameworks create unnecessary overhead.
For strategic evaluation of whether this momentum translates to your organisation, consult our decision framework.
How HTMX Differs from React, Vue, and Angular
React, Vue, and Angular are client-side frameworks that manage state, routing, and rendering in JavaScript. HTMX is a server-side architecture where HTML attributes trigger HTTP requests. That’s the fundamental difference.
React emphasises a declarative, component-based approach to building user interfaces. You break UI into reusable components that manage their own state and lifecycle. It’s sophisticated. It’s powerful. It’s also complex.
HTMX shifts complexity to the server. The backend becomes the authoritative source of application state and UI updates. Instead of managing state machines in JavaScript, you write server templates that generate HTML based on current application state.
The architectural differences cascade through your entire stack.
State management? React uses hooks or libraries like Redux. HTMX delegates state to the server. When state changes, the server generates new HTML reflecting that state.
Routing? React implements client-side routing through React Router or Next.js. HTMX uses traditional server-side routing with partial page updates.
Development model? React developers build component trees with JSX, manage component lifecycle methods, and coordinate data flow. HTMX developers write HTML with interactive attributes and server endpoints that return HTML fragments.
The learning curve differs too. React requires JavaScript proficiency, understanding of component patterns, and familiarity with the ecosystem. HTMX is minimal, building on HTML knowledge. Developers familiar with server-side rendering pick it up in hours.
SEO optimisation is simpler with HTMX. Server-rendered by default, no SSR setup required. React applications need Next.js or Gatsby to achieve the same search engine visibility.
When each approach excels? SPAs work for applications requiring complex client state—think Google Maps, collaborative editors, or offline-first applications. HTMX excels for server-driven workflows with complex business logic but straightforward UI patterns—admin panels, content management, form-heavy applications.
Our performance deep-dive provides detailed benchmarks.
Understanding the SPA vs Hypermedia Architectural Debate
SPAs emerged around 2010-2015 to solve the “click-reload-render” problem. Your users clicked a link. The browser made a request. The server processed it. The browser rendered a completely new page. Navigation felt slow.
Single Page Applications fixed this by maintaining local caches and managing optimistic updates. The result? Fast, fluid interfaces that felt like desktop applications.
But it came with costs. SPAs added significant complexity. You need an API layer. State management libraries. Client-side routing. Build pipelines. State synchronisation between client and server. For many applications, this complexity may not be justified.
Hypermedia architecture keeps the simplicity of server rendering while adding interactivity via HTMX. You get partial page updates without the framework overhead. The server handles business logic, generates HTML, and manages state. HTMX coordinates DOM updates.
The debate centres on whether SPA complexity is necessary. For applications with minimal client state—content platforms, administrative interfaces, e-commerce sites—HTMX provides sufficient interactivity with reduced complexity. For applications requiring sophisticated client-side behaviour—real-time collaboration, offline functionality, complex visual editors—SPAs remain appropriate.
Carson Gross notes that optimistic updates create problems when operations fail unexpectedly. You show your user a success state. Then the server rejects the operation. Now you need complex rollback logic and error handling. Hypermedia approaches avoid this by waiting for server confirmation before updating UI.
Modern web development has become increasingly complicated over the past 10-15 years. Some complexity stems from genuine technical needs. Much comes from developer preferences for sophisticated approaches over simplicity.
For teams considering transitions, our migration guide addresses the strategic considerations.
The “No Interactivity Gap” Problem in Server-Side Rendering
Traditional server-side rendering had a problem: every interaction required a full page reload. Click a button—full page reload. Submit a form—full page reload. This created an “interactivity gap” between static HTML and full single-page applications.
The choices were limited. Either accept full page reloads with their slow, janky user experience, or adopt a JavaScript framework with all its complexity. There was no middle ground.
HTMX fills that gap. It enables server-side rendering with modern interactive capabilities. You get partial page updates, dynamic content loading, form validation, infinite scroll, and live search without framework overhead.
The server-driven approach provides better SEO performance and faster initial load times because the server renders content that search engines can crawl immediately.
HTMX makes interactivity declarative through HTML attributes. Form validation becomes hx-post="/validate" instead of event listeners and state management. Infinite scroll becomes hx-get="/items?page=2" hx-trigger="revealed" instead of scroll event handlers and intersection observers.
The result? Server-rendered applications with SPA-like user experiences. Content management systems, administrative dashboards, and form-heavy applications get modern interactivity while maintaining the simplicity of server-side architecture.
HTMX seamlessly integrates with traditional backend frameworks, providing an efficient pathway to modernise legacy systems without complete rewrites.
Our implementation patterns guide covers specific techniques for common interactive patterns.
Why Developers Are Experiencing JavaScript Fatigue
JavaScript fatigue describes exhaustion from constant framework churn and tooling complexity. Developers fatigued by complex JavaScript ecosystems find HTMX refreshing. They want to build features, not manage build configurations.
The symptoms are clear. You choose a framework today. It’s deprecated tomorrow. React class components become functional components with hooks. Angular 1 becomes Angular 2 with complete rewrites. Vue 2 migrations to Vue 3 break compatibility.
Build tool complexity compounds the problem. Webpack configurations grow to hundreds of lines. You need loaders for CSS, Sass, TypeScript, JSX. Plugins for optimisation, code splitting, tree shaking. Environment variables. Development servers. Production builds. The configuration complexity rivals your actual application code.
Dependency management becomes its own job. Your node_modules folder contains thousands of packages. Security vulnerabilities appear weekly. Version conflicts break builds.
Testing adds another layer. Jest, Cypress, Playwright, Vitest. Each has its configuration. Each has its learning curve.
The “JavaScript is the new Java” critique captures this. Modern web development has become increasingly complicated, with developer preferences for sophisticated approaches over simplicity contributing to the trend.
HTMX reduces fatigue by eliminating most of this complexity. There’s no transpilation. No dependency hell. Developers use HTML attributes to define behaviour, reducing JavaScript code. You write server-side logic. You generate HTML. You add HTMX attributes. Done.
The simplicity enables faster onboarding and allows teams to leverage existing server-side expertise.
For strategic assessment of how simplicity translates to business value, see our decision framework.
Getting Started—Official Resources, Documentation, and Learning Paths
The official HTMX documentation at htmx.org provides comprehensive API reference and examples. Start there for technical specifications.
Carson Gross, HTMX’s creator and professor of software engineering at Montana State University, has written extensively about the hypermedia philosophy. His book Hypermedia Systems is available at hypermedia.systems and explains the architectural reasoning.
The philosophical essays matter. “Hypermedia Systems,” “HATEOAS,” and “Locality of Behaviour” provide context that pure API documentation can’t.
Carson Gross’s talks and interviews offer additional perspective. His Software Engineering Radio interview covers HTMX’s evolution from its predecessor intercooler.js.
The HTMX Discord community offers support for implementation questions. GitHub discussions and the Stack Overflow tag provide additional resources.
For learning paths, start with basic attributes: hx-get, hx-post, hx-swap. Build simple examples like form submissions and click-to-load content. Progress to swap strategies and CSS transitions. Then explore advanced patterns.
HTMX is compatible with lots of backends per “hypermedia-on-whatever-youd-like” philosophy. Integration guides exist for Django, Rails, Laravel, Express, and Spring Boot.
Is This a Real Renaissance or Another Hype Cycle?
HTMX demonstrates both genuine technical momentum and media-driven hype. The question isn’t whether HTMX is popular in developer discussions. It’s whether that popularity translates to production deployments.
HTMX has proved to be more than just an Internet meme. It’s become “a proper meme, an idea infecting the minds of the web development community.” The 16.8k GitHub stars added in 2024, leading React by 4k in the JavaScript Rising Stars category, demonstrates sustained momentum.
But momentum isn’t adoption. Most production applications still use React, Vue, or Angular. HTMX’s actual usage lags far behind its mindshare.
Evidence for renaissance? Sustained growth since 2020, production adoption by established organisations, and genuine technical advantages for specific use cases. HTMX solves real problems around JavaScript fatigue, bundle size, and architectural complexity.
Evidence for hype? Tech media amplification, “React killer” narratives that overstate HTMX’s applicability, and overclaiming by advocates.
The reality sits between extremes. HTMX represents a legitimate architectural alternative for server-rendered applications needing interactivity. It’s not a universal React replacement. Applications requiring complex client state, offline functionality, or real-time collaboration still benefit from SPA architecture.
HTMX is described as “finished software”—not because it’s dead, but because the basic idea is sound and the implementation is stable. That philosophy alone differentiates it from framework churn.
The historical precedent matters. HTMX began as intercooler.js, built around jQuery. The HTMX team wants to emulate jQuery’s technical characteristics that make it a low-cost, high-value addition to developers’ toolkits.
Long-term viability indicators look positive. Corporate adoption is increasing. Educational resources are expanding. The ecosystem is maturing.
The Triptych project deserves mention. The team is trying to push HTMX ideas into the HTML standard itself. The proposals evolve HTML to support PUT, PATCH, and DELETE requests in forms, allow buttons to issue HTTP requests, and support partial replacement.
For structured evaluation of whether HTMX fits your organisation, use our strategic decision framework.
Explore the HTMX Ecosystem—Deep Dives and Practical Guides
This pillar article provides a comprehensive overview of the HTMX renaissance. For deeper exploration of specific aspects, we’ve prepared detailed guides addressing performance validation, strategic decision-making, migration planning, and practical implementation.
Performance and Architecture Analysis
For teams evaluating HTMX based on empirical evidence, HTMX vs React—Performance and Architecture Deep-Dive provides detailed benchmarks comparing bundle sizes, Time to Interactive measurements, Core Web Vitals impact, and state management approaches. This technical comparison uses real-world data to demonstrate where each architecture excels.
Strategic Decision-Making
Choosing between HTMX and React involves more than technical considerations. When to Choose HTMX Over React—A Strategic Decision Framework addresses organisational context, team capability assessment, hiring implications, scaling characteristics, and long-term maintenance costs. It includes production case studies, enterprise readiness evaluation, and a decision matrix for systematic evaluation.
Migration Guidance
For teams with existing React codebases considering HTMX adoption, From React to HTMX—Migration Strategy and Risk Assessment provides incremental migration strategies, backend framework selection guidance, risk mitigation approaches, and rollback planning. Learn from real-world migration case studies and avoid common pitfalls.
Implementation Techniques
Ready to build with HTMX? Building Modern UIs with HTMX—Essential Implementation Patterns delivers production-ready code examples for common UI patterns including dependent dropdowns, complex form validation, real-time updates via WebSockets and Server-Sent Events, routing, progressive enhancement, and performance optimisation techniques.
FAQ Section
What is the main difference between HTMX and React?
React is a client-side JavaScript framework that builds component trees and manages state in the browser. HTMX is a server-side architecture that extends HTML with attributes to enable AJAX, WebSockets, and Server-Sent Events. React requires significant JavaScript code. HTMX requires minimal JavaScript and relies on server-rendered HTML fragments.
Can I use HTMX with my existing backend framework?
Yes. HTMX works with any backend framework that can return HTML fragments. Popular integrations exist for Django, Rails, Laravel, Express, Spring Boot, ASP.NET, and others. The server simply needs to handle HTTP requests and return HTML instead of JSON.
Does HTMX require a build step or bundler?
No. HTMX is a single 14KB JavaScript file you include via CDN or local hosting. There’s no transpilation, no Webpack configuration, no node_modules folder. You write HTML with HTMX attributes and your backend code—no build pipeline required.
Is HTMX suitable for large-scale applications?
HTMX works well for large server-rendered applications with complex business logic but relatively straightforward UI interactions. It may not be optimal for applications requiring extensive offline functionality, real-time collaboration features, or complex client-side state machines. Evaluate based on your specific requirements.
What is HATEOAS and why does it matter?
HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State) is a REST architectural constraint where servers provide navigation controls within responses. Instead of clients constructing URLs and managing state transitions, the server tells the client what actions are available. HTMX implements HATEOAS, making applications more flexible and reducing client-server coupling.
How does HTMX handle client-side validation?
HTMX supports HTML5 validation attributes natively. For custom validation, you can use HTMX extensions or small Alpine.js additions. Many teams handle validation server-side and return error messages as HTML fragments, maintaining the server-driven architecture philosophy.
Can HTMX applications work offline?
HTMX requires server connectivity for interactions since it relies on HTTP requests. For offline functionality, you’d need Service Workers and additional JavaScript—at which point an SPA framework might be more appropriate. HTMX excels for connected applications, not offline-first scenarios.
What browser support does HTMX provide?
HTMX supports all modern browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. It requires IE11 polyfills for Internet Explorer support. The library uses standard web APIs (XMLHttpRequest, Fetch API) that have broad compatibility.
How does HTMX compare to Hotwire/Turbo from Rails?
Both follow similar hypermedia-driven philosophies. Turbo is Rails-specific and provides full-page Turbo Drive navigation plus Turbo Frames for partial updates. HTMX is framework-agnostic and focuses on granular HTML attribute control. Both are viable. Choice often depends on your backend ecosystem.
What is the learning curve for HTMX?
For developers familiar with HTML and server-side rendering, HTMX has a shallow learning curve—most learn core concepts in hours. The mental shift from client-side to server-driven architecture takes longer. Developers deeply invested in React/SPA patterns may find the paradigm adjustment challenging.
Does using HTMX mean giving up on React entirely?
No. Many teams use both: HTMX for server-driven pages and React for specific components requiring complex client state. You can embed React components within HTMX applications where justified. The choice isn’t binary—use the right tool for each context.
What are the SEO implications of using HTMX?
HTMX applications are server-rendered HTML, making them inherently SEO-friendly. Search engines crawl regular HTML without executing JavaScript. This contrasts with client-rendered SPAs that require server-side rendering workarounds. HTMX provides SEO advantages similar to traditional server-rendered applications.
