4 ms·
> If you didn't know any better, you would expect almost all normal users to have [2] and professional engineers to have something like [1], but it's actually t
by lqet 2y ago
> If you didn't know any better, you would expect almost all normal users to have [2] and professional engineers to have something like [1], but it's actually the inverse: only few professional software engineers can "afford" to have the second option as their personal website, and almost all normal users are stuck with overcomplicated solutions.
I am confused, the inverse would be that professional engineers have [2] and normal users have [1]. But then they write that almost no professional engineer can "afford" [2], so everybody seems to have [1]..?
- jraph 2y agoI suppose they meant that only a few people, who are professional software engineers, can afford the second option.
- gryfft 2y agoIf you continue reading, the reasoning is given in the next sentence: > Weird as it might be, it's not a great mystery why that is: it's easier to spin up a Wordpress blog than it is to figure out by yourself all the intermediate steps.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Normal_gaussian 2y agoIt is indeed written as you say; I suspect - but cannot confirm - that the author meant: > ... only a few people - professional software engineers - can "afford" ... which would be the inverse. However, there is a case for reading as it is written even if it subverts reading expectations, as many (most?) professional software engineers do use COTS systems to publish and only a few have their own sites generated from scratch.
- smankoo 2y agoYes. That is confusingly phrased. Took me a sec too.
- daoistmonk 2y agoi read it as: "can't afford the overhead of complexity of running such a complicated stack for my personal x"
- sandeep_random 2y agoSomewhere down the line the ease of publishing changes is the differentiating factor which should have been accounted in the comparison