7 ms·

Gatsby is probbably the worst static site generator that exists and I am not really sure what it brings to the table other than incredibly slow build times, poi

by cheph 6y ago

Gatsby is probbably the worst static site generator that exists and I am not really sure what it brings to the table other than incredibly slow build times, pointless use of graphql (which falls apart quite quickly) and an over complicated framework which is difficult to customize and costly to maintain.

ghego1 6y ago
If you are looking for an efficient static site builder try YASSB! [1] YASSB processes HTML, (S)CSS, JavaScript/TypeScript, JSX/TSX, JSON, MarkDown and many other files and combines them into beautiful static websites. I am the creator of YASSB, I'd love to hear what you think about it! [1] [https://yassb-foss.github.io/](https://yassb-foss.github.io/) https://yassb-foss.github.io/](https://yassb-foss.github.io/...
- ghego1 6y ago
  Link: https://yassb-foss.github.io/ https://yassb-foss.github.io/
jrv 6y ago
I like that I can write pretty much normal React in it, and that it has a lot of features and plugins. But I'm still a pretty casual user probably.
madeofpalk 6y ago
Yes, I've seen the same problems from Gatsby and it wouldnt be my first choice, but I do really like it's use of GraphQL - i think it's a smart way to solve a problem that does exist for some use cases. I like Gatsby's createPage API that lets you programatically create pages from source data at any url, rather than the "traditional" approach of binding views to URL patterns. It's useful for some kinds of static sites that might have a radically different template or data source/model for multiple pages that fit the same URL pattern. Gatsby's use of GraphQL, which can be a pain especially as you scale larger, is nice how it lets you query just the fields you need, so your dehydrated data remains pretty minimal. It's something that I've struggle with when building a site with NextJS - I would have to set up and create my own GraphQL server. Gatsby is a weird one because it has these "advanced" features that really benefit larger sites (or sites with larger ambitions), but Gatsby really can't handle large sites or data.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  I found the GraphQL decision really works if you're combining multiple datasources. One example we built in practice is combining a CMS-as-a-service (Contentful, Prismic) and a webshop back-end as a service (Commercetools) to build rich product pages.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Yeah, it can be really helpful when you want to combine multiple data types/sources into a single meta type to query multiple types with just a single graphql query.
ljm 6y ago
It turns out that building a site in plain HTML, without fancy tools, isn't nearly as difficult as using stuff like gatsby once you get down to it. Hell, just throw in some PHP if you want dynamic bits and pieces. Your fancy netlify/cloudflare/vercel setup may not like it but your infinitely cheaper shared host/VPS provider will. If you still wanted static output, you could probably serve it locally and then let wget crawl it for you.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > If you still wanted static output, you could probably serve it locally and then let wget crawl it for you. Here's the complexity part that tools try to solve.
  - john-shaffer 6y ago
    There are decoupled tools like https://statically.io/ https://statically.io/ to do this. One can have the straightforward builds of GP and still have good static site generation.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      cool, we've just made something more complicated than netlify or whatever. Looks like a great tool for migrating an existing dynamic site into a more static workflow, but it's not exactly the workflow I was replying to.
- icebraining 6y ago
  > infinitely cheaper It's actually the opposite. Static site hosting is so much easier to optimize, that it costs just few cents a month, if anything at all (I never went beyond Netlify's free plan).
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    > I never went beyond Netlify's free plan There you go. Go beyond Netlify's free plan and it can get pretty expensive.
krisgenre 6y ago
I've just started using Eleventy for our site. For someone completely new to this it was bit difficult to start but once off the ground have started to love it. The best thing is if any feature is missing you can quickly write a plugin in javascript.
SkyPuncher 6y ago
I used Gatsby about 3 years ago and loved it. With that being said, I feel like it's grown well beyond it's useful value proposition for me. The biggest value was I could share a lot of components between my app and marketing site. Even though most of the marketing site was static content, Gatsby made it incredibly easy to introduce well integrated custom features. I never hit of the point of needing a full CMS (the site wasn't large enough), so it was great for my needs. Not sure why anyone would use it if they're going full CMS, though.

by cheph 6y ago

ghego1 6y ago

If you are looking for an efficient static site builder try YASSB! [1] YASSB processes HTML, (S)CSS, JavaScript/TypeScript, JSX/TSX, JSON, MarkDown and many other files and combines them into beautiful static websites. I am the creator of YASSB, I'd love to hear what you think about it! [1] [https://yassb-foss.github.io/](https://yassb-foss.github.io/) https://yassb-foss.github.io/](https://yassb-foss.github.io/...

ghego1 6y ago
Link: https://yassb-foss.github.io/ https://yassb-foss.github.io/

jrv 6y ago

I like that I can write pretty much normal React in it, and that it has a lot of features and plugins. But I'm still a pretty casual user probably.

madeofpalk 6y ago

Yes, I've seen the same problems from Gatsby and it wouldnt be my first choice, but I do really like it's use of GraphQL - i think it's a smart way to solve a problem that does exist for some use cases. I like Gatsby's createPage API that lets you programatically create pages from source data at any url, rather than the "traditional" approach of binding views to URL patterns. It's useful for some kinds of static sites that might have a radically different template or data source/model for multiple pages that fit the same URL pattern. Gatsby's use of GraphQL, which can be a pain especially as you scale larger, is nice how it lets you query just the fields you need, so your dehydrated data remains pretty minimal. It's something that I've struggle with when building a site with NextJS - I would have to set up and create my own GraphQL server. Gatsby is a weird one because it has these "advanced" features that really benefit larger sites (or sites with larger ambitions), but Gatsby really can't handle large sites or data.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
I found the GraphQL decision really works if you're combining multiple datasources. One example we built in practice is combining a CMS-as-a-service (Contentful, Prismic) and a webshop back-end as a service (Commercetools) to build rich product pages.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Yeah, it can be really helpful when you want to combine multiple data types/sources into a single meta type to query multiple types with just a single graphql query.

ljm 6y ago

It turns out that building a site in plain HTML, without fancy tools, isn't nearly as difficult as using stuff like gatsby once you get down to it. Hell, just throw in some PHP if you want dynamic bits and pieces. Your fancy netlify/cloudflare/vercel setup may not like it but your infinitely cheaper shared host/VPS provider will. If you still wanted static output, you could probably serve it locally and then let wget crawl it for you.

madeofpalk 6y ago
> If you still wanted static output, you could probably serve it locally and then let wget crawl it for you. Here's the complexity part that tools try to solve.
- john-shaffer 6y ago
  There are decoupled tools like https://statically.io/ https://statically.io/ to do this. One can have the straightforward builds of GP and still have good static site generation.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    cool, we've just made something more complicated than netlify or whatever. Looks like a great tool for migrating an existing dynamic site into a more static workflow, but it's not exactly the workflow I was replying to.
icebraining 6y ago
> infinitely cheaper It's actually the opposite. Static site hosting is so much easier to optimize, that it costs just few cents a month, if anything at all (I never went beyond Netlify's free plan).
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > I never went beyond Netlify's free plan There you go. Go beyond Netlify's free plan and it can get pretty expensive.

krisgenre 6y ago

I've just started using Eleventy for our site. For someone completely new to this it was bit difficult to start but once off the ground have started to love it. The best thing is if any feature is missing you can quickly write a plugin in javascript.

SkyPuncher 6y ago

I used Gatsby about 3 years ago and loved it. With that being said, I feel like it's grown well beyond it's useful value proposition for me. The biggest value was I could share a lot of components between my app and marketing site. Even though most of the marketing site was static content, Gatsby made it incredibly easy to introduce well integrated custom features. I never hit of the point of needing a full CMS (the site wasn't large enough), so it was great for my needs. Not sure why anyone would use it if they're going full CMS, though.