41–50 of 268 posts
> When I say Astro sites are fast, I mean properly fast. We're talking 40% faster load times compared to traditional React frameworks. That's a really low bar. Why not static pages? Why even use a framework at all if you're thinking of using Astro?
If you use static pages, how do you make sure that shared UI like navbars all update if you decide to make a change?
Unfortunately in fashion driven industry, it isn't always easy to keep to the basics.
Astro is a fantastic project that I would probably use more if SvelteKit didn’t exist (but it does, so Astro is always a downgrade).
> I've found Astro perfect for marketing sites, blogs, e-commerce catalogues, and portfolio sites Basically, not suitable for anything complex.
What makes it so great is not that it serves a particular niche (like "content-driven websites") but that it provides a developer experience that makes it incredibly easy to scale from a static website to something very complex and interaction-heavy without compromising UX.
This is satire, right? If only there was any other server side language that could do the same and produce static compliant super-light HTML-first pages!
Speed is probably the same as jekyll - but relative to my react vite and nextjs apps it's about 10 times faster.
I would definitely use Astro for more complicated websites than content driven - but would probably return to nextjs or more hefty full stack solutions for complicated web apps.
It's baffling to me why more SSR frameworks, Astro and NextJS namely, can't adopt static pages with dynamic paths like SvelteKit. So for example, if you have a page /todos/[todoId] you can't serve those in your static bundle and NextJS straight-out refuse building your app statically. Whereas with SvelteKit, it builds happily and does this beautiful catch-all mechanism where a default response page, say 404.html in C…
[0]: `https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/routing/#static-ssg-mode
> When I say Astro sites are fast, I mean properly fast. We're talking 40% faster load times compared to traditional React frameworks. That's a really low bar. Why not static pages? Why even use a framework at all if you're thinking of using Astro?
How do you do server-side rendering without a framework? If you use static pages, how do you make sure that shared UI like navbars all update if you decide to make a change?
> Traditional frameworks hydrate entire pages with JavaScript. Even if you've got a simple blog post with one interactive widget, the whole page gets the JavaScript treatment. Astro flips this on its head. Your pages are static HTML by default, and only the bits that need interactivity become JavaScript "islands." Back in my days we called this "progressive enhancements" (or even just "web pages"), and was basically…
I think we are overdue for a rediscovery of object oriented programming and OOP design patterns but it will be called something else. We just got through an era of rediscovering the mainframe and calling it “cloud native.”
Every now and then you do get a new thing like LLMs and diffusion models.
I feel a lot of the hype around Astro has more to do with vite than anything else. And there yes, without doubt, vite is amazing.