11–20 of 270 posts
It may not have a zillion libraries, but surprised that a site trying to be zippy uses low-contrast text (obviously, I am not a fan of the "increases engagement time" school of thought).
Even for a certain level of collaboration, I think one could get away with using static sites. I haven't tried this in practice but imagine having a git-based CI/CD flow for a static site, where non-technical end users could use the web-based Markdown editors of github.com or gitlab.com to make small changes, save and push via a pull request.
Each merge is of course approved by a more technical user.
I would love to hear if anyone has tried this model.
If it is a website - then it is plain HTML with some CSS. The exception is - there will be some JS if we want saucer flying across screen.
If it is an application - the logic will be coded in plain JS that talks to backend using JSON based RPC. No frameworks bar some domain specific libs. Minifying / building step can be included for production.
Works well for me.
All joking aside, I use the same stack save for the templating. Unless you are a web developer I don't see the point of a CSS framework, it's much easier to roll your own. Nor of a site generator, I tried Hugo it saved no time at all. Nor of JavaScript, a few months ago I tried replicating the websites of a few companies to improve my css skills, HTML and CSS were enough to reproduce the appearance of all of them, yet none of their website would even appear without JavaScript enabled.
We stack on framework after framework, new languages, new tools, all for nothing but increased complexity and busy work for a new generation. (Save for the 5% of websites that actually need that stuff.)
Also interesting to see they actually sell a service, would have been curious to know what their prices are like.
Super easy to get started and has lots of goodies to generate static HTML. You can scale it up later if you need more than just a static website.
Fancy that! HTML and CSS? To make a Website? They must be mad! All joking aside, I use the same stack save for the templating. Unless you are a web developer I don't see the point of a CSS framework, it's much easier to roll your own. Nor of a site generator, I tried Hugo it saved no time at all. Nor of JavaScript, a few months ago I tried replicating the websites of a few companies to improve my css skills, HTML and…
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't sound all that different from your average static site generator—Python-based Jinja templating for HTML files versus Ruby-based Liquid templating for HTML/Markdown files (i.e., Jekyll).
And that's cool. Making stuff is fun.