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

Tiny Awards for Small Websites

tinyawards.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#41

Post by nicbou »

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…

I like static builders. It's just markdown files and some templates. It makes editing much easier. If your website is about the content and not the presentation, it makes a lot of sense.

I made my own static site builder (typical HN!) and it's just a python package. At its simplest it depends on Python Markdown and Jinja.

The website itself is dead simple and gracefully degrades. It's just text on a page after all.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#43

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

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…

we like to solve problems by creating 10 new ones

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#44

Post by ilyt »

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…

> 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"?

What happened are people being annoyed with hand-fucking html every time they want to write a blogpost started writing/using static site builders

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#45

Post by ilyt »

yawpitch wrote: post #28
bradley_taunt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure this is in jest, but it truly is baffling that this purely informational webpage is so massive. I believe the “small” web is more than being an independent entity and instead also should avoid wasted resources. Developers need to respect their end users’ bandwidth and time. Just my two cents.

Ironically “just my two cents” is a waste of both bandwidth and time.

Gotta do something with the bandwidth you saved on JS bloat

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#46

Post by rchaud »

This is a good start. Back in the Flash days, there used to be "Site of the Day" type sites where you could find cool stuff. Unfortunately this quickly got gamed and became a love-in for agency websites, each one upvoting the others, Product Hunt-style.

A one-off $500 prize is just enough to get some interesting websites in there, while also not being enough to keep out the Linktree-type sites.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#47

Post by rchaud »

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…

> Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack type thing to do even incredibly simple sites?

Because devs don't think of websites like a place for personal expression; to them, personal websites are usually roughly structured wikis of stuff they've learned that would be mostly hard to read or follow for others.

So they geek out over the details of the blog infrastructure. If instead of a website, they were asked to draw something, they'd focus on the sturdiness of the paper.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#48

Post by rchaud »

astroalex wrote: post #8

This is awesome. Almost all content on the internet has been centralized by social networks, so it brings me joy to see an appetite for small, personal, non-commercial websites.

Eh, I've been on the hunt for non-commercial websites for close to a decade. It's pretty barren out there. Three types of people have websites these days:

1) People trying to sell something: courses, books, their resume, etc.

2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack)

3) People who created their website in the 90s and saw no reason to stop.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#49

Post by rchaud »

bradley_taunt wrote: post #20
ktjalve wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will do a https://1kb.club/ site next year.

I’m sure this is in jest, but it truly is baffling that this purely informational webpage is so massive. I believe the “small” web is more than being an independent entity and instead also should avoid wasted resources. Developers need to respect their end users’ bandwidth and time. Just my two cents.

It's not baffling at all, they are using a WYSIWIG CMS that adds a lot of JS.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#50

Post by rchaud »

hxii wrote: post #38
input_sh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn’t mention scope anywhere. It says “small web”, and last I checked “small” implies size, not scope. How do you not get bored of fighting windmills?

A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'.
Post reply on HN