5 ms·
> I think most sites can be broadly classified as (1) "relatively static" such as hackernews itself My entire job experience would disagree. I have yet to work
by andrewstuart2 9y ago
> I think most sites can be broadly classified as (1) "relatively static" such as hackernews itself
My entire job experience would disagree. I have yet to work on a static content site. When I do, you can be sure I'll use hugo or some static site generator, but every job I've had so far was to build sites that act on user-specific data that changes frequently.
- bo1024 9y agoFirst, I want to clarify: You and I may be thinking of "static" somewhat differently (maybe I misused the term). I'm not thinking of e.g. HN as static in the sense of unchanging over time, actually it constantly changes in response to user interactions. But when I personally visit a page on HN, the page I receive mostly "static" in the sense of essentially serving me a set of text, not responding dynamically to my actions (except a little bit in the case of HN). Second, fair enough with regards to your work experience, but for me, most sites I visit are just serving text/images/video, not interactive or barely interactive.
- pjmlp 9y agoThat is where server side rendering comes into play. Most JavaScript I write, just boils down to fancy form validation or using something like Highcharts.