4 ms·
Just curious, what's wrong with plain html/css? Seems more powerful now than ever, with flexbox/grid and the new css features.
by lazyjeff 7y ago
Just curious, what's wrong with plain html/css? Seems more powerful now than ever, with flexbox/grid and the new css features.
- hartator 7y ago+1. I don’t get it either. Maybe the ability to use Markdown?
- ElCapitanMarkla 7y agoIt’s fine until you have a list of blog posts etc that you want to generate your static site from
- hartator 7y agoHow is that different than just copy pasting a new page?
- crucio 7y agoWhat if you want to update the template? You'd need to change it on every page. That's fine if it's only a dozen, but does not scale well.
- wishinghand 7y agoI used to have a 5 page portfolio site and it was a pain even with that few copy/pastes to do in order to update my header. Static site generators ftw.
- wishinghand 7y agoIf you want the pages to share a header, footer, and menu, it can be a pain because if you ever want to change something in a shared component, you'd have to do it for every single page.
- hazbo 7y agoI think this is the way to go if you're not one to change the HTML very frequently. It can be a repetitive process to update HTML for each page if you've wound up with lots of them. If that's not so much a concern, go for it!
- Marsymars 7y agoIt doesn't solve the same problem as a static site builder. e.g. A static site builder lets you build templates using whatever plain html/css you want, and then you can write individual pages in markdown and have them generated using your template.