Tiny Awards for Small Websites

Post by gyanreyer » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 12:59 PM UTC

SanderNL wrote: post #25

ktjalve wrote: post #4

Thanks for the feature. We made the website with https://build.mmm.page/ . It is the most fun wysiwyg builder I have used. Highly recommend it, bugs included.

Why? It’s text with some images. Even Word could do this better. Frontpage would be a massive improvement.

Post by prakhar897 » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 1:13 PM UTC

Post by rikroots » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 1:25 PM UTC

fefe23 wrote: post #23

Is this some kind of joke? This "tiny" web page loads content from 8 other sites. The html of the page is 122k big. Add to that more than a megabyte of useless javascript frameworks.

Post by hxii » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

input_sh wrote: post #35

MrVandemar wrote: post #2

Tiny Awards for Small Websites is awarded the prestigious and highly coveted "Boatload of Unecessary Javascript Blocking Content Award" by me.

Tiny in scope , not tiny in size. It says nothing about page size, but 80% of the comments are pointless bickering about JavaScript by grumpy HN readers that prefer their web experience to be permanently stuck in 2005. I will never understand how do you never get bored of fighting windmills.

Post by Dalewyn » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

dmje wrote: post #24

To me the idea of a small web is a great one. But then for some reason everyone equates small with "static builder" and before you know it you're into a hellscape of complexity with static site builders, SPAs and other madness. What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack t…