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

Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

clairefro.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#171

Post by rmilejczz »

smarkov wrote: post #59
willsmith72 wrote: post #34

I don't get the value prop of all vanilla. The overhead involved in building a react app is nearly nil with all the tooling we have. Sure CRA was slow, but vite makes things sub-second again. It's like when remix people talk about progressive enhancement to me. Sure, cool, you can do things differently. But why? If you already know the ins and outs of a framework or tool and are productive with it, use it. I'm never…

> The overhead involved in building a react app is nearly nil with all the tooling we have. All the tooling we have is exactly why React has an overhead which is far from nil. Every package goes through a period of changing its best practices, some go through multiple. Entire packages go in and out of season, seemingly depending on the phase of the moon. There's a new bundler every year, each with its own quirks. For…

Strongly disagree

npm install -g vite

vite init my-react-app

npm install

npm run dev

The most popular build tools have mostly stayed the same. Some things have fallen out of fashion sure like gulp. But overall the abstractions built over complicated tools have only improved and only made it easier to get started with web dev. I’d argue it’s never been easier to start a modern statically typed react app.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#172

Post by rmilejczz »

thiht wrote: post #70
degun wrote: post #13

Jumping on the React hate train has become a trend these days, but it still has its place.

Of course it has its place. Not for a blog though, it makes no sense

It doesn’t really matter what you write your personal blog in lol I’ve created some egregiously over engineered personal projects over the years just for the sake of learning a new technology

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#173

Post by creata »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #161
creata wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Firefox says the contrast ratios meet WCAG AA. For me, the main problem is the font weight. I'm sure it looks better on high-density displays, but it is way too thin to read comfortably at a regular pixel density.

Which extension are you using? I use a tool called CCA and it takes font size into consideration.

I'm using the built-in Firefox accessibility pane.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#174

Post by joseda-hg »

bdcravens wrote: post #72
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think they would have discovered Flask or something similar just out of personal curiosity.

I think a culture has been created where anything resembling server-side rendering (other than Node spitting out JSON) is legacy to be avoided ..... until of course the Javascript creates its own convoluted version of server-side rendering, which is revolutionary and the new hotness.

Aren't those just the server-side components from React?

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#175

Post by paulryanrogers »

robertoandred wrote: post #159
paulryanrogers wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the distinction is that PHP is interpreted in real time most often. So there is rarely a separate build step.

It’s a build step that happens every time the page is loaded instead of once when it’s deployed.

Then arguably JS is worse, since any 'build' steps preceding it don't bypass the (client side) interpreter either. Except perhaps if WASM is involved.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#176

Post by c-hendricks »

ehnto wrote: post #160
c-hendricks wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're missing the other GPs point. Even when building a static website, you might want to reuse components. Or use shared components. Or do some logic. Or easily compose things. Note they said "JSX as a templating language". Why worsen the experience using Python + Jinja when you're just building a static site.

Mm, herein lies the problem, I was not thinking about Python at all, and I suspect we are all thinking about various different tools. A static site is necessarily not dynamic though, as soon as you need dynamic features you need to reach for one tool or another. "Static site generators" are just dynamic sites with a pre-compile step instead of JIT. When I think of a static site, I am thinking HTML, CSS, some server s…

A static site to you requires a server generating files? A static site to me implies the assets can be dumped to something like S3 and you're done.

So if you wanted to say, pre-generate those pages with the header and footer already there, you would ... ?

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#177

Post by ehnto »

c-hendricks wrote: post #176
ehnto wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mm, herein lies the problem, I was not thinking about Python at all, and I suspect we are all thinking about various different tools. A static site is necessarily not dynamic though, as soon as you need dynamic features you need to reach for one tool or another. "Static site generators" are just dynamic sites with a pre-compile step instead of JIT. When I think of a static site, I am thinking HTML, CSS, some server s…

A static site to you requires a server generating files? A static site to me implies the assets can be dumped to something like S3 and you're done. So if you wanted to say, pre-generate those pages with the header and footer already there, you would ... ?

No I was saying the opposite, a static site is necessarily not dynamic.

I would not want to pre-generate those pages. Your static files on an S3 bucket are still served by a webserver.

Anyway, can you honestly say, hand over heart, that server side rendered JSX or React is a robust and simple solution comparable to SSI or I don't know, a bit of copy pasting? Of course not. Server side rendering is a complex toolchain that will rapidly and constantly deprecate. My blog has been sitting on the same "stack" for 13 years, takes me 5 seconds to set up a new post.

I have worked on countless JS projects, sometimes they don't even build just 6 months later without faffing about with packages and versions.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#178

Post by c-hendricks »

ehnto wrote: post #177
c-hendricks wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A static site to you requires a server generating files? A static site to me implies the assets can be dumped to something like S3 and you're done. So if you wanted to say, pre-generate those pages with the header and footer already there, you would ... ?

No I was saying the opposite, a static site is necessarily not dynamic. I would not want to pre-generate those pages. Your static files on an S3 bucket are still served by a webserver. Anyway, can you honestly say, hand over heart, that server side rendered JSX or React is a robust and simple solution comparable to SSI or I don't know, a bit of copy pasting? Of course not. Server side rendering is a complex toolchain…

Yeah at this point I have literally no idea what you're talking about?

The thread is about pregenerating static content, "can you honestly say, hand over heart, that server side rendered ..." is way off base. Seems like"static site" means "assets can be plopped into any server that can serve static assets" to one set of people, and to others it's an invitation to balk?

I'm in the former camp, if that wasn't obvious. If you want to talk about serving static assets to host a blog, I'm down. If you want to compare server stacks, I'm out.

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#179

Post by mettamage »

ukuina wrote: post #166
mettamage wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not always. The bootcamp I worked for did 2 months of pure HTML/CSS/JS and then did a personal project for another month of which students almost exclusively used HTML/CSS/JS, some did React. Only in the final week did I teach React. This was around 2017, most students didn't become React devs. Most students did end up in the JS ecosystem, but 30% did something else [1]. [1] When I say 30%, that's not an official sta…

Which part of that curriculum was core CS?

None of it, as those skills were not asked for by the labor market. And I tend to agree with it (as a CS bachelor and master graduate). What you need to learn is programming in a specific way. CS teaches a broad scope of things that are all helpful but they are not strictly necessary to know, especially not as a junior. I think doing a CS degree after having done web dev for 3 years in the field is a much wiser decision.

For example, I never really had to know how a compiler works or assembly, but I know it. I only needed my data structures and algorithms knowledge once. My knowledge of UML? Meh

And so on

Re: Look ma, no React: I recoded my portfolio site with vanilla everything

#180

Post by uxcolumbo »

creata wrote: post #173
uxcolumbo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which extension are you using? I use a tool called CCA and it takes font size into consideration.

I'm using the built-in Firefox accessibility pane.

I checked with other tools and yes it does pass AA for normal text. I'd still increase the contrast ratio.

I use a high resolution screen and the text is rather small - hence why it's harder to read.

On mobile it's OK.

Post reply on HN