Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tiny websites are great

tinyprojects.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 227 posts

Re: Tiny websites are great

#191

Post by StavrosK »

cyrialize wrote: post #189
stavros wrote: post #16

I love this initiative in principle, but the instructions left a rather sour taste in my mouth. Create a Firebase app, download and install Node and run some arcane cli commands? For what? To upload a 10-byte HTML file somewhere? Please, do yourself and us a favour and sign up for a free account on https://neocities.org , and make a quirky website by hand for all of us to enjoy. I half want to write a post like this…

I do exactly what you recommend. My website, https://cyrialize.dev/ , is hosted on Neocities. I used jekyll to create it and I use water.css which I found on CSS Bed ( https://www.cssbed.com/ ). The Neocities gem is VERY useful. My process is super simple, it's basically: - Make changes - Commit & Push - jekyll build - neocities push _site/

I agree with you so much, I even removed the push step and have Gitlab CI do it for me:

https://gitlab.com/stavros/neocities-gitlab-ci-demo

Re: Tiny websites are great

#193

Post by vidugavia »

nicbou wrote: post #125
vidugavia wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RSS, pagination, categories, tagging, responsive images, ToCs - all these things work just perfectly in static sites.

Sure, but they need to be generated by some sort of framework, somewhere. If your definition of a static site includes framework-generated index pages and page structures, aren't almost all websites static already? Making them tiny is just a matter of writing better templates, not picking more obscure frameworks.

In my books the difference lies in how the HTML is generated. In case of static sites you generate it only when you rebuild the site after changes. In dynamic sites you build it dynamically on each request. Sure, you can cache the hell out of it and have a feeling that it's the same, but the truth stays that perhaps you're doing 50 SQL queries for a simple "welcome on our site" landing (something I actually witnessed some years ago). And with caching you're achieving the result with adding another infrastructure layer on something that could have been dead-simple from day one.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#194

Post by meigwilym »

Reminds me of the 90s when I first started out. In a way it's a shame that the basics have been forgotten, and the first step taken to develop a website is a cli app to install a load of boilerplate.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#195

Post by aalbacetef »

camillomiller wrote: post #118

>“ Things have really changed since I began learning, and rightly so. Instead of coding in plain HTML, CSS and JS, I'm now using endless frameworks, modules and libraries to build increasingly more complex web and mobile applications. It's great, if I didn't use these tools my code would be an unmaintainable mess.” How sad that this has become the widely accepted narrative. There’s a lot of value right now in NOT bui…

As someone that has used vue.js quite a bit in the past, I have to admit what you came up against is quite odd. It is a very minimal framework.

He might just be that kind of JS dev that really likes to build a webpack castle.

You know, if you can drop in a url to a cdn-distributed version of a JS, you'll instead rebuild the whole thing in webpack, babel, and several other things just to be able to type "import".

Re: Tiny websites are great

#196

Post by aalbacetef »

julianeon wrote: post #62
the_jeremy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will find a cheaper hosting option. GitHub and GitLab pages are both free for static sites. I've used both, they both are pretty painless. You basically click "make this a website" and tell it your URL. Automatically HTTPS, completely free.

Wow, I didn't know you can even hook up your own custom domains (looking at GitLab pages). That's pretty amazing.

gitlab is simply amazing! Moved some years ago from github.com, haven't regretted it at all!

Re: Tiny websites are great

#197

Post by def_true_false »

markosaric wrote: post #95
trog wrote: post #7

Tiny websites are great! It's interesting to note that the website content itself for this article is 5,045 bytes (HTML + CSS), but the analytics code (firebase-analytics.js) is 26,458 bytes, and firebase-app.js (whatever this is?) is 19,865 bytes. Not a criticism; analytics is important & maybe the app JS is too. Just think it's worth bearing in mind that it's really easy to blow out your website's total delivery im…

There are also "tiny" solutions for analytics. I'm working on Plausible Analytics which is only 1.4 KB right now and provides a modern dashboard. It also doesn't use cookies and doesn't collect personal data so you're not required to show the cookie/GDPR prompts which would make tiny websites much less tiny. See https://plausible.io/ There's an issue on our Github which will help us perhaps reduce it to under 1 KB to…

You claim that using your analytics doesn't require user consent:

> "Plausible does not use cookies and does not collect any personal data. This makes us compliant with the different cookie laws and privacy regulations. It means that you are not required to annoy your visitors with a cookie notice if you’re using Plausible analytics." [1]

> "Compliant with privacy regulations: Google Analytics places cookies and collects a lot of data from your visitors. You’re required to have a privacy policy, to show a cookie banner and to obtain consent for GDPR. Plausible Analytics doesn’t use cookies and doesn’t track personal data so you don’t need to annoy your visitors or worry about those prompts." [2]

It would seem you are collecting PII and processing it server side (?), e.g. calculate_fingerprint here [3].

Care to explain how that doesn't require user consent?

[1] https://plausible.io/data-policy#plausible-is-compliant-with...

[2] https://plausible.io/blog/blog-post-changed-my-startup#new-p...

[3] https://github.com/plausible-insights/plausible/blob/master/...

Re: Tiny websites are great

#198

Post by cyrialize »

StavrosK wrote: post #191
cyrialize wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do exactly what you recommend. My website, https://cyrialize.dev/ , is hosted on Neocities. I used jekyll to create it and I use water.css which I found on CSS Bed ( https://www.cssbed.com/ ). The Neocities gem is VERY useful. My process is super simple, it's basically: - Make changes - Commit & Push - jekyll build - neocities push _site/

I agree with you so much, I even removed the push step and have Gitlab CI do it for me: https://gitlab.com/stavros/neocities-gitlab-ci-demo

Holy cow, I never thought about doing that. I think there's a similar thing in Github, I'll definitely check it out.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#199

Post by anderspitman »

ta17711771 wrote: post #109
anderspitman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays you can have your cake and eat it too. There are privacy-respecting free alternatives to GA.

Name your favorite?

GoatCounter. I did a writeup comparing a few options here:

https://anderspitman.net/20/#get-off-google-analytics

Re: Tiny websites are great

#200

Post by anderspitman »

TheDong wrote: post #121
anderspitman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is if you're using a CDN it might not give you access to complete logs. Still there's at least one better free option than GOOG analytics IMO[0] [0]: https://anderspitman.net/20/#get-off-google-analytics

So? I have javascript disabled so a frontend analytics option also won't give you complete analytics. It's a tradeoff, you get to decide if you run code on your visitor's computers without consent and get analytics that are wrong in one way, or if you run code on your server with your own permission, and get analytics that are wrong in another way and simpler.

Do you feel that the amount of error for those with JS disabled is similar to those going through a CDN?
Post reply on HN