4 ms·
This probably feels like a big advantage if you’re in the JS world where setting up IDEs and bundlers and CI is a big involved endeavor, but Go+static HTML is c
by throwaway894345 5y ago
This probably feels like a big advantage if you’re in the JS world where setting up IDEs and bundlers and CI is a big involved endeavor, but Go+static HTML is close to effortless. No need for CI pipelines to build and publish source code or docs packages, and the test framework and build tooling require minimal effort to set up in a CI capacity. Similarly, Dockerfiles are trivial and minimalist, and everything builds, tests, and deploys lightning fast. It’s not as glitzy as some really high end web apps, but the quality is usually higher on the medium and low ends and it’s almost always faster.
- nine_k 5y agoIf you can afford static (100% server-rendered) HTML, the world is your oyster! Party like it's 1998, but with incomparably better tools. But a large enough proportion of modern web sites need enough interactivity to make even jQuery or even HTMX slightly inadequate.
- throwaway894345 5y agoAgreed, but I contend that this is a small share of the sites that use a frontend JS framework (which is to say that these frameworks are often used unnecessarily) and even those which genuinely need some serious JS could likely scale it back considerably to significant benefit. I say this as someone who usually argues in favor of the new and shiny.
- andybak 5y agoI would argue this proportion is a lot smaller than the number of websites that think they do.