3 ms·
The site could be 5 simple handwritten HTML files, one with a sprinkling of JS inline in it, plus 2 small Perl CGI scripts. And it would work perfectly for 25 y
by wruza 2y ago
The site could be 5 simple handwritten HTML files, one with a sprinkling of JS inline in it, plus 2 small Perl CGI scripts. And it would work perfectly for 25 years and counting.
Or it could be something in between, because it’s convenient to do so.
In my case, I couldn’t care less of resumes and offers, but still I want something more ergonomic than spitting out htmls from templates in js/python. So my sites are a mix of typescript, mithril, express and a few utility libs. Idk and don’t care how many packages it is, as long as my main imports are mature and don’t give birth to a new feature-vulnerability every few minutes.
You never mentioned your stack, but it’s a safe guess that it’s react and its ecosystem of always-improving-never-done bullshit. My completely unsolicited advice here is to avoid believing in false dichotomies. 1) There’s a big space between raw html and the worst possible mud. 2) This situation with react “world” is specific to react and isn’t indicative of anything outside of itself.
- apitman 2y agoNice stack, but are you really using it to make complicated enough sites that TypeScript is much benefit? Drop that build step baby.
- wruza 2y agoI run with `tsx [-w] src/main.ts` and `vite [build]`, so it's not that much of a step. But in general, yes, ts is much benefit. I use shared typings for cross-end calls/returns, mithril supports full component typing which is useful, the whole devtime becomes more lively. I'd agree at webpack 4 "zero" "conf" times, but rejecting ts now returns nothing.