3 ms·

> 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 b

> 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Or use something like strapdown and let the client handle rendering. https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/ https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/
    - alright2565 2y ago
      The 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.
    - shpx 2y ago
      When I clicked that link I saw a flash of unstyled content, so that's immediately worse than HTML. My point was that if you count the time spent looking for the perfect renderer, HTML is faster and easier to write than Markdown unless you're writing a book. You just added another option someone has to spend time evaluating to the pile.
      - hiatus 2y ago
        There is no need to look for the "perfect" renderer. That reminds me of the authors that won't write unless they have the best notebook, pen, etc. Just write your content and throw strapdown on it. Who really cares if there's a flash of unstyled content?
borisjoffe 2y ago
Also consider Pug (formerly called Jade). It's a bit more verbose than Markdown, but it's really nice because you can skip closing tags (it's indent-based like Python), can use CSS selector syntax (same as Emmet e.g. `div#someId.someClass`), and you can paste in regular HTML and have that work as well. There's also file includes, template syntax like loops/if-statements, inherited templates, inline Javascript syntax, "filters" for including Markdown and other languages, and much more

muzani 2y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Or use something like strapdown and let the client handle rendering. https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/ https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/
  - alright2565 2y ago
    The 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.
  - shpx 2y ago
    When I clicked that link I saw a flash of unstyled content, so that's immediately worse than HTML. My point was that if you count the time spent looking for the perfect renderer, HTML is faster and easier to write than Markdown unless you're writing a book. You just added another option someone has to spend time evaluating to the pile.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      There is no need to look for the "perfect" renderer. That reminds me of the authors that won't write unless they have the best notebook, pen, etc. Just write your content and throw strapdown on it. Who really cares if there's a flash of unstyled content?

borisjoffe 2y ago

Also consider Pug (formerly called Jade). It's a bit more verbose than Markdown, but it's really nice because you can skip closing tags (it's indent-based like Python), can use CSS selector syntax (same as Emmet e.g. `div#someId.someClass`), and you can paste in regular HTML and have that work as well. There's also file includes, template syntax like loops/if-statements, inherited templates, inline Javascript syntax, "filters" for including Markdown and other languages, and much more