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

There's never been a better time to build websites

simeongriggs.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 337 posts

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#181

Post by mikewhy »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #24

> Static was a fun diversion, but we're back to what works. I won't be moving away from static website. It is perfect solution for a blog/CV type thing. >you might think that minutes-long build processes are normal If compiling your static site takes minutes there is something fundamentally wrong with your site in my opinion.

> > Static was a fun diversion, but we're back to what works.

> I won't be moving away from static website. It is perfect solution for a blog/CV type thing.

Yeah, I'm keeping an eye on these new "MPA"/"transitional" frameworks, but the thought of taking a static marketing page, which costs fractions of a cent to serve and is easy to put on a CDN, to now requiring a backend server which costs magnitudes more, seems foolish.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#182

Post by stevenicr »

hooby wrote: post #92

It's definitely a great time to build websites, but saying they _NEVER_ have been easier to make... I'm not 100% sure about that. Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html…

agree it's false that it's never been easier, and like to add a few small datapoints.

20 or so years ago you had microsocft frontpage - anyone could build a site with little learning. heck microsoft word could spit out the doc as html I dunno how long ago.

some 15 years ago or so, I ran into a 'junk hauler' I found via google, asked who did his site, he said he did. I was like wow you were #1 in google organic, that's amazing - he said he opened microsoft publisher, put in the text, added a picture of his truck and clicked publish.

A lot has changed since then of course - google demands responsive layouts to rank well, and most people use a phone to surf.. which for a while made frameworks the magic since css grid was not baked into word/publisher/ie...

anyhow as far as 'easy' the are many other easier tools to use than tailwinds to make a site, and have been for more than a decade.

Now that browsers can auto fit via flex and grid - tailwind and similar are the bloat, not the easy-button.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#183

Post by samhw »

handrous wrote: post #158
samhw wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And maybe also ads generally. This is all well and good, but then we need a serious alternative funding model for websites. Right now, a lot of people with adblockers are benefiting from a situation fausse where they free-ride on the ad-click revenue generated by others. I think in some people's minds this leads to an impossible expectation that they can continue to enjoy freely provided services, provided at consi…

> This is all well and good, but then we need a serious alternative funding model for websites. Why? Without competition from free-but-funded-with-$billions ad-supported services, most of the valuable stuff would probably be replaced by volunteer and non-profit efforts. Others would survive by charging (more) money. Some would be replaced by protocols (several social networks would be among those replaced). Clients &…

> Without competition from free-but-funded-with-$billions ad-supported services, most of the valuable stuff would probably be replaced by volunteer and non-profit efforts.

It wouldn't just be 'non profit', it would be 'considerable loss'. You can't provide a service like YouTube or Google without incurring enormous expense, even if you're only counting the infrastructure costs.

> It'd work out fine.

You have no idea whether it would work out fine. Neither do I. I'm intensely sceptical of anyone who issues hand-waving proclamations about how a dramatic change would affect an almost indescribably complex system.

You may have your own wishes and preferences, but it's not a good idea to let those invade the rational, evaluative part of your mind.

> Most of the rest isn't valuable.

Anything that's used by someone is valuable to someone. I don't like paella, but I don't propose to eradicate all paella restaurants for that reason. Again, this feels like a hand-wavey and not very wise answer to dismiss problems with your idea.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#184

Post by hooby »

pech0rin wrote: post #135
hooby wrote: post #92

It's definitely a great time to build websites, but saying they _NEVER_ have been easier to make... I'm not 100% sure about that. Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html…

I understand the point you are making but is HN really the best example of modern web app? For better or worse web apps have replaced desktop apps. Not everything on the web is a simple list of articles and comments. Some things require extremely complex interactions and workflows. I don't think minimalism is the cure for everything, sometimes you need _some_ complexity and yes sometimes things are easier to use with…

No, it's most definitely not the best example of a modern web app.

But everyone reading this knows it, and it does serve as proof that you can build a successful website with extremely little design & features. Therefore it seemed a good choice to illustrate my point.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#185

Post by jakelazaroff »

thomasahle wrote: post #178
_fat_santa wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html tags? The thing is you can still do all of this. But we have since built tools and frameworks to let you still do this, while g…

> The thing is you can still do all of this. But we have since built tools and frameworks to let you still do this, while giving you superpowers. I think Svelte is the best example of this. You can create a dead simple site with it and have the result you are talking about I don't know. I just tried to use Netlify to upload a simple static Html/Javascript page I made. Now I'm trying to figure out CORS errors. Pretty…

If you're trying to figure out CORS errors, it means you're either loading fonts or making XMLHttpRequests across domains. Neither of those were available in the 90s era OP is rhapsodizing about. You don't have to use the additional features/complexity of the past 15–20 years… but if you do, it's not surprising that things get a little more complex!

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#186

Post by leephillips »

Mezzie wrote: post #127
hooby wrote: post #92

It's definitely a great time to build websites, but saying they _NEVER_ have been easier to make... I'm not 100% sure about that. Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html…

> Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html tags? I mean you still can, it's just that nobody's going to hire you to do that and nobody is going to be impressed by it. Eve…

“no responsive design (remember designing 3 different sites to deal with the 460x640, 600x800, and 1280x1024 resolutions?”

Using media queries with breakpoints, and doing exactly what you describe, was the original “responsive design”. What you have in mind (I think) is what might be called “fluid design”—responsive design without media queries. You could always do this to some extent with such things as inline blocks, auto margins, and other ancient CSS technology (and an unstyled site also reflows responsively), but flex and grid allow more elaborate fluid designs.

There is also some advantage to making separate designs carefully crafted for a variety of screen shapes, that you give up with fluid design techniques.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#187

Post by samhw »

allknowingfrog wrote: post #147
samhw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, and RSS is not dead. Not at all (thanks WordPress, for putting a feed on every instance). RSS is the only workable way to make the web social again. What we need, IMO, is more experimental protocols to enrich the web, which maverick developers can use to good effect, the same way we did originally with RSS. More browsers forking Chromium or Servo to add support for these new features. Hell, maybe even something…

If you're not already aware of it, Gemini is an interesting project that aims to do exactly that. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/

Interesting, thanks for the pointer! I was aware of Gopher, but not Gemini. It seems to address what would be one of my main concerns about any proposed alternative, which is - for the beginning at least - interoperability with the web.

I'm sure people have other bold ideas. I personally think there's a lot of room for something which builds on the 'progressive web app' paradigm: i.e. a web for websites which are more like apps, downloaded once and then exchanging data ad hoc with a backend server, with potentially much richer and more performant experiences. WebAssembly (WASM + WASI) would be a great foundation for something like that. But that's just one among countless compossible paths.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#189

Post by marcosdumay »

the_only_law wrote: post #130
marcus_holmes wrote: post #3

I have a feeling that this is the next religious war in dev. I read this article and shudder in horror at, well, all of it. I like static sites (that wouldn't take minutes to build if they were written in a decent language). Adding lots and lots of JS dependencies and frameworks gives me the screaming ab-dabs - it's just adding complexity and dependency. I like writing code, not plumbing together bits of other people…

> Imagine if TV developed in a way where they sat and tested how much they could speed up the show and be understood and made that the standard so shows could be 'watched' more quickly: That experience would SUCK. Honestly, a lot of times, I’m left wondering if this isn’t the case.

Well, the trend seems to be completely on the other way, on making the experience as slow as possible.

Re: There's never been a better time to build websites

#190

Post by hooby »

notjustanymike wrote: post #153
hooby wrote: post #92

It's definitely a great time to build websites, but saying they _NEVER_ have been easier to make... I'm not 100% sure about that. Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html…

> Isn't Hacker News itself a really great example of a website that successfully uses only very basic html with very, very little styling and fancy extra features? Hacker News is an aesthetic that would be unacceptable to the majority of businesses in the world. The login page alone would cripple sales on any e-commerce site.

So... Are you trying to argue that it's easier today to make an acceptable company website than it was in the 90ies... or that it was easier in the 90ies than it is now?
Post reply on HN