4 ms·

Static Sites Aren't Simple Anymore

1 points by ingve 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago
>However, the expectations for a statically generated site have drastically gotten higher over the years. Readers want (rich) content served fast No, readers just want content served fast. Nothing beyond simple markdown or static html with some images or video embeds inside. >Writers want dead simple (but expressive) writing and publishing. They want control over how their writing looks. Who are those "writers"? If you're making a "static site as a service" perhaps that's a concern. If you're making your own static site, you can use the simplest Markdown or whatever else you prefer, writing it manually, with or without a generator. You could even use the Motherfucking Website standard (https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/) or the Better Motherfucking Website RFC (http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/) or the Best Motherfucking Website recommendations (https://thebestmotherfucking.website/ https://thebestmotherfucking.website/) or go fancy and use the cutting edge Perfect Motherfucking Website ones (https://perfectmotherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://perfectmotherfuckingwebsite.com/).
pilgrim0 3y ago
I came to this exact realization yesterday, as I was making a portfolio site to a friend. I obviously decided to make as simple as possible: MPA, no JS, content written directly in HTML, it would be done in a day or two. Ok, but as I’m 50% done I realize how the gallery viewing experience was terrible, could be improved with a little JavaScript. But hey, now my development setup must change, I don’t want to write imperative code, I know this is hard to maintain. Since now I’m coding, I want industrial-grade tools. And just like that I was back at framework driven development. So, it’s not that static sites aren’t simple anymore, it’s that we are developing applications and not simple webpages. If you really want simple static sites you must also accept all of the limitations.

1 points by ingve 3y ago

>However, the expectations for a statically generated site have drastically gotten higher over the years. Readers want (rich) content served fast No, readers just want content served fast. Nothing beyond simple markdown or static html with some images or video embeds inside. >Writers want dead simple (but expressive) writing and publishing. They want control over how their writing looks. Who are those "writers"? If you're making a "static site as a service" perhaps that's a concern. If you're making your own static site, you can use the simplest Markdown or whatever else you prefer, writing it manually, with or without a generator. You could even use the Motherfucking Website standard (https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/) or the Better Motherfucking Website RFC (http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/) or the Best Motherfucking Website recommendations (https://thebestmotherfucking.website/ https://thebestmotherfucking.website/) or go fancy and use the cutting edge Perfect Motherfucking Website ones (https://perfectmotherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://perfectmotherfuckingwebsite.com/).

pilgrim0 3y ago

I came to this exact realization yesterday, as I was making a portfolio site to a friend. I obviously decided to make as simple as possible: MPA, no JS, content written directly in HTML, it would be done in a day or two. Ok, but as I’m 50% done I realize how the gallery viewing experience was terrible, could be improved with a little JavaScript. But hey, now my development setup must change, I don’t want to write imperative code, I know this is hard to maintain. Since now I’m coding, I want industrial-grade tools. And just like that I was back at framework driven development. So, it’s not that static sites aren’t simple anymore, it’s that we are developing applications and not simple webpages. If you really want simple static sites you must also accept all of the limitations.