2 ms·

Sure I can understand not migrating existing dynamic websites to a static deployment model - don’t fix what isn’t broke. I suppose the question is more about gr

by jakear 6y ago

Sure I can understand not migrating existing dynamic websites to a static deployment model - don’t fix what isn’t broke. I suppose the question is more about greenfield projects, where in my experience writing a couple markdown files and pushing them to github and checking the “serve this” box is easier than managing a server. > It's also not a money-making venture. So you have very poor ROI on making your charity site endure the rare hug of death. It goes down? Oh well. It'll come back up. This is a very strange statement to me. My impression would be that if you’re running a charity site (or any site that makes money from being visited), you would want it to absolutely not go down during a hug of death, as that’s money out of your pocket at a time when it’s getting a ton of free publicity. Why make the site in the first place if you aren’t expecting it to provide value to either you or the viewer?

hombre_fatal 6y ago
>where in my experience writing a couple markdown files and pushing them to github and checking the “serve this” box is easier than managing a server. Making a site is more than "just some markdown files". Can you show me what you're talking about? Maybe I'm missing it. If you mean static-site generators (they aren't just a couple markdown files), they are very nerdy and have pretty bad UX for most people. I don't even use them. They are effectively developer-only, for one. > This is a very strange statement to me. Well, this is how things work. This goes back to the parable of the lumberjack who didn't have time to sharpen his axe, or the guy who didn't have time to write a shorter letter. You just want to get something online that others can modify. Any additional second your pour into it is probably a waste of time. A niche website like JS1024 is down? Maybe nobody really cares. Maybe the only person willing to host this just does things this way. Oh well. Edit: Your confusion here reminds me when I got my first dev job and was confused why the other developers never wanted to improve these obvious problems in the code. Or use new patterns. Or learn new things (16+yo VBScript app, the website was one 500k line switch statement running on IIS). "Doesn't anyone care?!" But as I got older, "I can't be fucked" or "cbf" made a lot more sense to me. Don't underestimate how often "cbf" answers your questions. ;)

by jakear 6y ago

hombre_fatal 6y ago

>where in my experience writing a couple markdown files and pushing them to github and checking the “serve this” box is easier than managing a server. Making a site is more than "just some markdown files". Can you show me what you're talking about? Maybe I'm missing it. If you mean static-site generators (they aren't just a couple markdown files), they are very nerdy and have pretty bad UX for most people. I don't even use them. They are effectively developer-only, for one. > This is a very strange statement to me. Well, this is how things work. This goes back to the parable of the lumberjack who didn't have time to sharpen his axe, or the guy who didn't have time to write a shorter letter. You just want to get something online that others can modify. Any additional second your pour into it is probably a waste of time. A niche website like JS1024 is down? Maybe nobody really cares. Maybe the only person willing to host this just does things this way. Oh well. Edit: Your confusion here reminds me when I got my first dev job and was confused why the other developers never wanted to improve these obvious problems in the code. Or use new patterns. Or learn new things (16+yo VBScript app, the website was one 500k line switch statement running on IIS). "Doesn't anyone care?!" But as I got older, "I can't be fucked" or "cbf" made a lot more sense to me. Don't underestimate how often "cbf" answers your questions. ;)