3 ms·
For static pages, regular HTML and CSS will be sufficient. For dynamic ones, I would choose Laravel (a PHP framework). I'll give a rather unpopular opinion, but
by demian32 2y ago
For static pages, regular HTML and CSS will be sufficient. For dynamic ones, I would choose Laravel (a PHP framework). I'll give a rather unpopular opinion, but in the beginning, you don't need to become a master in PHP and know every function. The Laravel documentation will guide you step by step when you want to add authentication or create a simple feature for adding dynamic content. There are also plenty of community tutorials. If simplicity is important to you, I would advise against going the fullstack JS route. The Node.js environment or more specifically a framework like Next.js is very convoluted. You'll have to combine packages and functionalities yourself, and constantly changing versions will significantly complicate it.
- altdataseller 2y agoWhat if you need javascript? What would you recommend in addition ti to laravel? Or is Laravel enough?
- kugelblitz 2y agoI would argue adding JavaScript on top of Laravel will make you slower. You can use Blade as the templating engine (or how JS people would call "Server Side Rendering" but which has been default for most full stack frameworks). Otherwise you need to create 2 additional interfaces, one for backend and one for frontend. And an additional layer of error handling. I personally prefer Symfony over Laravel because of it's modularity and extensibility, but Laravel has the edge on getting started quickly and available SaaS features (such as billing modules and stuff). If you need SPA-ish features, you could use htmx and if you need some on-site interactivity, I like Alpine.js.
- pyronite 2y agoAlpine + Livewire is the go-to stack for SPA-like Laravel functionality these days. If you "need" JavaScript for form purposes, Filament is well worth taking a look at as well.
- 0xblinq 2y agoCheckout Inertiajs , it’s and adapter for Laravel to integrate it with react or vue
- PurpleRamen 2y ago> For static pages, regular HTML and CSS will be sufficient. Not if we are talking about productivity, as asked here. HTML is rather simple to learn, but can be annoying enough to write. And let's not start talking about CSS is for a beginner... Using some flavor of markdown and convert it to html would be far more productive. There is enough software around for enabling people a fast start, and you have the option to still enhance it with html&css (probably javascript too?).
- muzani 2y agoI tried Hugo and Jekyll and such, but it felt out of flow, and I felt going through docs and setting up builds was more effort than just writing it in HTML. The true benefit of HTML IMO is being able to just save something in a plaintext editor and then open it right away. These days you can probably just write whatever format you like and Claude or ChatGPT will convert it to HTML.
- shpx 2y agoI spent hours researching the right Markdown to HTML renderer. Writing HTML by hand would've been faster. There's dozens of these frameworks and none are perfect.
- hiatus 2y agoOr use something like strapdown and let the client handle rendering. https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/ https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/
- alright2565 2y agoThe strapdown website works surprisingly well with Javascript disabled & is less than 50KiB excluding images. It does take (just barely) perceptibly longer to load than a traditional site. But I've generally seen sites using this strategy to be a lot more bloated and slow, so please be considerate of that if you can.
- 2y ago