I’d like to propose that we refrain from using the term "DeadView" as the opposite of “LiveView” and instead choose an alternative. A new name could shifts our focus from a negative or lifeless impression (as “dead” might imply) to a neutral one.
After debating a while, I came up with two alternatives.
1. —— not an option
2. FrozenView
“FrozenView” also references the capturing of state at a point in time in a solid piece. The benefit of this name is that it aligns with commonly used words to describe the action to transform from a solid state to fluid state.
unfreeze a view (connecting the socket)
freeze a view (disconnecting the socket)
Although hydration doen’t seem to be on the roadmap afaik.
The impact on the existing eco-system.
Nihil. It’s a matter of endorsing the new name and as a result documentation will be adapted over time.
- Whether your suggestion is easily implemented or inline with the state of Phoenix as it is today.
Agree with the sentiment. Views, the V in MVC (most frameworks) or MTV (Django) exist for much longer than LiveView.
We needed something to contrast to the new name. It’s a similar story SPA → MPA (those were simply applications before “single-page app” became a thing).
I agree overall. It was humorous the first time Chris said “DeadView” but it’s really stuck and puts a negative image on what is still very useful functionality in the right circumstances. I’ve suggested “StaticView” before but I think I like “StillView” better. Other ones that just hit me:
This. Every time I have to write it myself I try…well…not to.
The StaticView was also my first thought, but as we already have static_path and static_url for assets it would might cause confusion. Also it reminds me a bit of a page-as-asset (read: precompiled page on a CDN). The fact that they might include dynamic data (hello {name}) makes them less static than pages that do not.
Like those but they suffer the same as ‘Next Gen’ in being relative. In 20 years LiveView might be superseded…and is considered classic/vintage.
DeadViews is coined years ago, no need to rush alternative naming. The more thoughts the better!
Thank you, thank you, for giving voice to something that has been quietly troubling me as well. Words convey a lot in how we communicate and welcome others and the term “dead” view is not welcoming to new members to this community who may still be very well invested in a non-liveview approach. The same is true for established members who still use these regular views that were and continue to be a valid approach to many a solution, myself included.
Huh, I never thought of DeadView as a name with negative connotation It’s kinda too good to be replaced at this point IMO. Perhaps there are other ways to highlight dead view as a perfectly viable option? “DeadView is not Dead” post on dashbit blog or something
I’m not exactly sure we have “DeadView” anymore in first place. The Phoenix Views have been replaced by co-located/embedded component rendering. There’s only LiveView, I don’t actually have any other types of views.
I actually still like “StaticView”. It’s a very boring term relative to the alternatives, but it’s probably the most immediately understandable term in contact to what LiveView does. Something like “StillView” is good, but I have to now learn what we mean by “still” to understand it… it’s not a commonly used term with understood technical meanings.
There is a certain subsection of the population who may react even worse to “still” as the opposite of “live” If we’re making a change on the basis that it adds a bad connotation, I would suggest avoiding that pairing.
It seems there will be an option to use LiveViews without auto-connecting the socket. If these will replace the traditional views, deadview might not even be far off. Although deprecated would sound more neutral.
Ehn, the concept of death should not be a negative thing but that is a very different existential conversation
Dead is the opposite of Live so it makes the most sense, but if we can’t have that then I’d say StaticView seems reasonable. It’s not really true since of course it can have JS, so you have to think of it in context (which is fine). It’s really a DisconnectedView but that doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
Personally I’ve always found “dead view” to be hilarious so I don’t see myself not using it in every day communication, but I’m fine if the official language changes.
Yes, since the live part pertains to live updates from the server as opposed to pre-rendered. At least that’s my understanding. The default approach being view, then View would be a good alternative, (like a Live stream would contrast with stream).
I actually always assumed that LiveView and View were the names, and would conclude it was an inside joke when tutorials and guides didn’t just use View. Kinda like saying “incantation” when referring to solutions to problem-scopes, though I did side-eye it.
Deadview never bothered me but it probably does have negative connotations for some. That’s not ideal. There are situations where a regular, controller-backed view is perfectly suitable.
My suggestion would be ‘rendered view’. The view is rendered, then sent to the client. It shouldn’t be considered bad, just simple.
Thank you for posting this, totally agree! DeadView makes it sound like non-LiveViews are deprecated and should be avoided, rather than a perfectly valid approach that fits tons of uses that aren’t a match for LiveView. It fragments our already small ecosystem.
It’s kinda too good to be replaced at this point IMO. Perhaps there are other ways to highlight dead view as a perfectly viable option? “DeadView is not Dead” post on dashbit blog or something 
If we’re making a change on the basis that it adds a bad connotation, I would suggest avoiding that pairing.
