4 ms·

The author cites two examples of "unnecessary complexity on websites." The first, in the linked post, states > It’s massively over-engineered! But that’s the

by kixiQu 5y ago

The author cites two examples of "unnecessary complexity on websites." The first, in the linked post, states > It’s massively over-engineered! But that’s the point: learn, have fun and enjoy slowly hacking away after the kids go to bed. So even if we conclude that the cost-benefit of the application-like functionality of this person's site slants toward cost (this isn't actually argued, of course), the creator of this site agrees -- it's just that the fun and learning make it worth it. About the second example, the author states "Why was it designed this way? I couldn't tell you. It reminds me of a quote: 'An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity.'" Well, one reason why it might have been done suboptimally is that the creator is a college student (https://slc.is/#About https://slc.is/#About). Nobody learn in public where this guy might find it, I guess, or you're an 'idiot'. If you're making this argument without reckoning with the pros and cons of the application paradigm in professionally engineered websites, you're not serious about the argument and you're just being a jerk.

barryf 5y ago
Thanks, kixiQu. I'm the author of the linked post and I enjoyed - and agreed! - with much of the thinking behind the original article. I'd use a static site generator in a normal use case, but I think it's fine to experiment on my own site.
mckinley_ 5y ago
I'll admit I was a bit too harsh about it. I saw an opportunity to use a Terry Davis quote and took it. There's nothing wrong with learning, of course. My point was that if you choose to introduce this unnecessary complexity you will likely end up with an unreliable website that alienates some visitors. Most personal websites are made for the creator themselves more than they are for others, mine included. With computers, you should do what makes you smile. On the other hand, publishing something on the internet opens yourself up to criticism by others. There's definitely a lot of problems with my website, I invite you to write about it.

by kixiQu 5y ago

barryf 5y ago

Thanks, kixiQu. I'm the author of the linked post and I enjoyed - and agreed! - with much of the thinking behind the original article. I'd use a static site generator in a normal use case, but I think it's fine to experiment on my own site.

mckinley_ 5y ago

I'll admit I was a bit too harsh about it. I saw an opportunity to use a Terry Davis quote and took it. There's nothing wrong with learning, of course. My point was that if you choose to introduce this unnecessary complexity you will likely end up with an unreliable website that alienates some visitors. Most personal websites are made for the creator themselves more than they are for others, mine included. With computers, you should do what makes you smile. On the other hand, publishing something on the internet opens yourself up to criticism by others. There's definitely a lot of problems with my website, I invite you to write about it.