3 ms·
I agree with the sentiment here, the thing is, I've noticed that the newer generations are using frameworks like Next.js as default for building simple static w
by Alifatisk 1y ago
I agree with the sentiment here, the thing is, I've noticed that the newer generations are using frameworks like Next.js as default for building simple static websites. That's their bare bone start. The era of plain html + css (and maybe a sprinkle of js) feels like it's fading away, sadly.
- zero_shift 1y agoI think that makes sense. I have done the hyper optimised, inline resource, no blocking script, hand minimised JS, 14kb website thing before and the problem with doing it the "hard" way is it traps you in a design and architecture. When your requirements change all the minimalistic choices that seemed so efficient and web-native start turning into technical debt. Everyone fantasises about "no frameworks" until the project is no longer a toy. Whereas the isomorphic JS frameworks let you have your cake and eat it: you can start with something that spits out compiled pages and optimise it to get performant _enough_, but you can fall back to thick client JavaScript if necessary.
- timeon 1y agoIt is bit sad that web is optimized for developer not the user. Even with blog barely anyone would develop further.
- fleebee 1y agoI think you're late enough for that realization that the trend already shifted back a bit. Most frameworks I've dealt with can emit static generated sites, Next.js included. Astro feels like it's designed for that purpose from the ground up.
- austin-cheney 1y agoYou have noticed that only just recently? This has been the case since jQuery became popular before 2010.
- chneu 1y agoArguably it's been this way since web 2.0 became a thing in like 2008?
- zos_kia 1y agoNext.js bundles the code and aggressively minifies it, because their base use case is to deploy on lambdas or very small servers. A static website using next would be quite optimal in terms of bundle size.