4 ms·
So much praising so little talk about its limits. I consider myself to be kinda stick in a Rails way of thinking. But most projects I touch heavily depend on a
by herbst 8y ago
So much praising so little talk about its limits. I consider myself to be kinda stick in a Rails way of thinking. But most projects I touch heavily depend on a backend, database, or raw computing power.
Everything that doesn't fall in those categories is something I create static (ex nanoc.) i just build out locally push to my git and let a post-commit hook do the Copy pasta. My static Web server runs without attention for 5 plus years now.
I see it makes stuff easier, but i fail to see why it would be so much better than any other git deployment method.
- lotyrin 8y agoA traditional MVC app process has a start up time and a memory cost so you either have a bad experience while a user waits for it to start up, or you have to rent (or own) some amount of RAM 24/7. Static site + API Gateway + async processing by a Function-as-a-service type pattern (or its abstracted productified form) allows for something between your two categories here -- mostly content that is pre-rendered but supporting some write-type features where people can still post comments or subscribe to newsletters or something like that.
- chrstphrknwtn 8y agoWell all deployment aspects equal, I suppose it's the performance. ~200ms to first paint in the browser is pretty hard to beat.
- blairanderson 8y agoThey're basically giving you: - the "static webserver" - the sandbox for commit hooks - instant CDN & cache-busting - 1-click domain setup - 1-click SSL setup - git-branch powered a/b testing - git-branch powered deploy previews - Functions-as-a-service deployment and routing and that's the free tier