Live data from Hacker News

My stack is HTML+CSS

blog.steren.fr

11–20 of 194 posts

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#12
I swear this same exact post gets re-dressed and upvoted weekly.

Is there anything worth discussing here? The entire thesis of the post is "my blog is maintenance free". Ok, and? Is blog maintenance really a noteworthy topic?

How many times can blogs rephrase "use the right tool for the job"?

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#13
My output is HTML and CSS, but my stack is React with Next.JS. I just tell Next to not emit JS at build time.

This is the best of both worlds. You get an excellent dev experience with TypeScript, fast refresh, the world of React components (granted many don't work when reduced to being static HTML), and I can also opt back into React on a page by page basis if I have the need.

With Next's static site generation and export, the output is just HTML and CSS (and optionally JavaScript), no need for a server.

If anyone is curious, my personal site was done this way: https://mattgreer.dev

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#14
I appreciate folks who do this, and they're not wrong that it works for them and their use cases.

But all the other complexity that comes along with the web and web development don't exist just because of those use cases.

Nothing wrong here, although the litany of "look i'm just using html and css" gets to be a bit much sometimes and it sort of irks me to see yet another and another posted on HN and up voted with nothing new to say about it.

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#15
post #5

The only issue I see with going pure HTML + CSS is that you lose those smooth client site transitions that tools like next.js/gatsby give you. Is there a library that can give you HTML + CSS low kb site but those client site fast interactions (no page reloads)?

I'd say probably Turbolinks is your best bet there. You basically drop it in, and then it prefetches all the links on your page, and when you click them, it replaces the DOM. It works quite well actually, Rails has been using it out of the box for years and years.

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#16
While I really like the idea of serving raw HTML and CSS, I think that on the authoring side, a static site generator that ingests Markdown and generates HTML is a more practical way to go.

I think writing raw HTML can work fine for small pages, and arguably it can be better than Markdown for pages with a lot of design elements, like landing pages. But for the typical blog post, or especially if the blog post has code snippets that you want to have syntax-highlighted, a static site generator is way easier to work with.

With the pace of change, I do worry a bit about the longevity of some of today's static site generators, but the Markdown itself is pretty darn portable.

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#17

Very much like saying, “my vehicle will outlive yours. No, it doesn’t have wheels or axles, because my vehicle is the human legs.”

More like saying '...because my car is the public bus system' Github pages is still software, running on a server

Github pages is more akin to the roads; if Github, a particular road, were to go away tomorrow, your site could just use a different road.

Re: My stack is HTML+CSS

#18
post #15
post #5

The only issue I see with going pure HTML + CSS is that you lose those smooth client site transitions that tools like next.js/gatsby give you. Is there a library that can give you HTML + CSS low kb site but those client site fast interactions (no page reloads)?

I'd say probably Turbolinks is your best bet there. You basically drop it in, and then it prefetches all the links on your page, and when you click them, it replaces the DOM. It works quite well actually, Rails has been using it out of the box for years and years.

How come GitHub isn't using Turbolinks then? Because each link transition will reload the page.
Post reply on HN