Haxe

```html
    <script src="haxeui.js"></script>

    <script>
        haxe.ui.Toolkit.init();
        var button2 = new haxe.ui.components.Button();
        button2.set_text("Button 2");
        button2.set_onClick(function(e) {
            button2.set_text("Thanks!");
        });
        document.body.append(button2.element);
    </script>
```
Not exactly the nicest api to work with from vanilla js, but still functional

well, id need to @:expose("button") for that

why? i think you could just expose fields with this

but thats the easy part, ill just copy the addGlobalMetadata macro and "add some stuff"

wel, for me the main issues (apart from the haxe.ui.components.Button part, but thats easy to fix with @:expose) is a) no native setters (even with es6) and b) have to use the `.element` part

how are you expecting that to work without native es6 setters?

.text, without them, isnt a setter, its a variable - so it wont trigger any of the code that is attached to the setter

doesnt use native es6 setters, as i said above

https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/issues/5104

i wonder if find and replace "get_" with "get " would work (with some regex to make sure its a function etc)

well, manually changing "get_text" to "get text" breaks everything as there are other places in the code that use "get_text"... so i think it would have to be done at the generator level 😦

```haxe
    static function __init__():Void {
        #if js
        untyped Object.defineProperty(ComponentContainer.prototype, "text", { get: ComponentContainer.prototype.get_text, set: ComponentContainer.prototype.set_text });
        #end
    }
```

this works, as the ticket above described - pretty ugly though

```html
    <script>
        Toolkit.init();
        var button2 = new Button();
        button2.text = "Button 2";
        button2.onClick = (e) => {
            button2.text += " clicked";
        };
        document.body.append(button2.element);
    </script>
```

you could make a function for that instead of putting that in the constructor 🤷‍♂️

and realistically, i'd generate all of this at compile time

Nice, would externs reduce file size with app1 and app2 not including HaxeUI? App1 being 2 mb and app2 being 2mb...but with externs App1, App2 are 1mb with haxeui being 1mb?

yeah, so app1 and 2 would be built against the externs which means they would be absolutely tiny, well, js size without haxeui

How far off is that? It seems compiling might be quicker....Maybe that could be done with haxe-modular as well