7 ms·
My major critique is that the generated sites are needlessly javascript powered. Right when I saw the "Loading" I thought oh no how many assets are going to be
by agentgt 10y ago
My major critique is that the generated sites are needlessly javascript powered. Right when I saw the "Loading" I thought oh no how many assets are going to be downloaded... for just markdown content.
I guess I'm just an old web 1.0 guy but I just don't see and understand why everything must be done in a super dynamic way. Hell sometimes I like clicking on a link and watching the browser do the loading as it is confirmation for me the thing actually got loaded. Particularly when buying/shopping for stuff (ie traditional POST).
- zackify 10y agoI think it's completely fine to use JavaScript here. It would be nice to have instant page pushes. But it should be rendering the site without a loading indicator. There's no reason that should be displayed
- gkya 10y agoWhat is a page push?
- jakobegger 10y agoI think in this case "page push" means that changes get sent automatically to the client via javascript (as opposed to "pulling" changes by pressing refresh. Completely useless for static sites, but nice to have while authoring.
- agentgt 10y ago> I think it's completely fine to use JavaScript here. It would be nice to have instant page pushes. I'm not sure I follow on the instant page pushes. Are you talking about a little dialog that pops up and "says a new version of the page" kind of thing? Second is there features you saw that required Javascript (as it appeared to me most could be done with CSS)? And no I don't think it is "completely fine" to use JavaScript particularly if you are trying to spread the word as quickly as possible and don't care about looks (ie most devices, loads fast, low power). There are also a growing amount of people that have Javascript disabled in general.
- hayd 10y agoOne solution is to just send all the linked pages on first load (all the markdown content, so when transitioning they only load images, or of seen before get them "from cache").
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- paulddraper 10y agoAw...this makes me so sad. I need to fix my brain. Every time I see "static sites", I think "oh great, no dynamic server or client code, just static HTML/CSS for fast loading". If I'm going to have to undergo a "compile step" for my website, it's going to do something worthwhile, darn it.
- bluetwo 10y agoI totally agree. Make it worth the extra layers of junk.
- 100001000001001 10y agoThere is server side templating and asynchronously loaded js. Just because it loads quickly and efficiently and without massive js bloat does not mean it isn't useful or dynamic
- paulddraper 10y agoSet of Markdown files -> set of HTML files just seems so obvious of an approach, I don't see the advantage of anything else.
- avn2109 10y agoI keep waiting for someone to write a program that consumes as input Markdown text and emits as output a pure HTML/CSS site literally like this http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ except with the text from the Markdown file instead of swear words. Maybe it could even accept several Markdown files and make them into blog posts or something. If nobody else does I guess eventually I'll get fed up and build it myself :\
- austincheney 10y agoInstead of HTML/CSS why not parse markdown to a something even more direct like terminal output. My biddle application does this. Try it out let me know what you thing. Here are some commands to get started: git clone git@github.com:prettydiff/biddle.git cd biddle node biddle (parses the readme.md file to the terminal) node biddle get http://example.com/document.md node biddle markdown downloads/document.md node biddle markdown downloads/document.md 60 (word wrap at 60 character width)
- kristerv 10y agoyep, i completely agree. The only reason it's JS heavy is because it's a MVP. If this project turns out well it will end up being a simple HTML with bare-minimum javascript.
- fdgdasfadsf 10y agoHow is it easier to go in this direction?
- masukomi 10y ago... the only reason it's complex is that you didn't have time to do something simple?
- kristerv 10y agoEven though the site is simple development time has been severely dropped thanks to choosing a fairly heavy platform.
- agentgt 10y ago> Even though the site is simple development time has been severely dropped thanks to choosing a fairly heavy platform. I don't think it is because the platform is "heavy" (I assume in productive features) but rather it is what you are probably most recently familiar with. For example I have built similar CMS tools for internal documentation with Java + Postgres (markdown and mustache.java) in less than a day. The development time was quick because I know Java and SQL... and basic HTML + request response handling. The fact is it is even easier to pump this stuff out if you don't do Javascript heavy stuff because you can use so many different languages for basic HTTP + HTML + storage. Hell you might even be able to have a RDBMS (like postgres) with a couple plugins itself power the whole thing.
- kristerv 10y agoyou are certainly right about the familiarity. Also some of the ideas proposed here have been very valuable, i'll be sure to check them out.