2 ms·
>The experience of developing a simple website using React is orders of magnitude better than using html and CSS. OK well I've done both and I have to say no i
by bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>The experience of developing a simple website using React is orders of magnitude better than using html and CSS.
OK well I've done both and I have to say no it's not, but probably my definition of simple is simpler than yours. It also seems to me that the original comment used a simpler than yours model of simplicity.
>Next.js is a pretty good static site generator.
my experience is that Next.js is a lousy static site generator, but reasonable if you want to use React.
- tasn 2y agoI explained why in the rest of the comment. Reusable components, code generation, etc. are a godsend. Copy pasting sections across and within pages, and not being able to generate code is hell. Simple is better, but bare doesn't necessarily mean simpler.
- averageRoyalty 2y agoWe're talking about "simple website". You can use any number of LLMs to generate you a boilerplate or use something simple and lightweight like Bootstrap. For a simple website, the things you're talking about add time and effort, not remove them - especially for someone who knows how to do neither.