3 ms·
In my humble opinion, you lose a lot when you go fully static. One particular case that becomes a pain in the ass is redirections. Nuxt has some redirect module
by whoisjuan 6y ago
In my humble opinion, you lose a lot when you go fully static. One particular case that becomes a pain in the ass is redirections. Nuxt has some redirect modules but they feel super half baked.
Also routing is a mess. Really no way to set up routing in a decent, understandable way.
So in my opinion just use Nuxt when you are sure your website is not going to need any complex functionality that is easily achievable with a server middleware. Pretty sure that there are other ways to achieve good SEO and in general Search Engine indexation without giving up so much.
- jmkni 6y agoI feel as though if you just want a static website, you're better to use one of the more mature frameworks designed for that purpose, like Ruby on Rails or Asp.net Core etc. I worked on a project built with Nuxt about a about a year ago and I really didn't like it. Everything felt like a chore.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoAm I missing something or did the definition of static website change? AFAIK a static site is one that has no backend and you can throw on S3 or whatever. An ASP.NET project is pretty much the absolute furthest you can get from a static website.
- holtalanm 6y agoRoR and Asp.net Core are not static site generators. They are web app frameworks that typically involve server-side rendered html. A better example of a static site generator would be something like Jekyll (https://jekyllrb.com/ https://jekyllrb.com/)
- jimbob45 6y agoYeah this seems close to the philosophy of no side effects for functional languages. It's neat and has some nifty benefits for your code but for the 1% of situations where you need side effects/client-side rendering, you're gonna end up fighting the tool rather than enjoying it.