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

An Honest Review of Gatsby

cra.mr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#71

Post by dariusj18 »

jiofih wrote: post #68
tomduncalf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, SSG build times are certainly an issue in my experience, even for smallish sites. I quite like the incremental regeneration idea in NextJS: https://nextjs.org/blog/next-9-5#stable-incremental-static-r... - sounds like it will rerender pages in the background as traffic comes in to them, while serving a stale version to the original request. I guess there are times when this might not be acceptable though... in…

It’s kinda funny to see that go around in circles. “Pre-rendering content as requests come in” is exactly the same as having dynamic pages and a layer of caching, as had been standard practice for the last 20 years. Some people just really like to “solve” already solved problems.

As they say, "Get a framework that'll do both."

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#72

Post by ValentineC »

jiofih wrote: post #69
rahimnathwani wrote: post #34

Wes Bos released his 'Master Gatsby' course a few days ago: https://mastergatsby.com/

Isn’t it beautiful? You create an open-source community, grow it, get donations, start selling the product, sell cloud services, and finally sell content and training to actually be able to understand the complexity. All to deploy static websites, something you can do for free with near zero complexity by simply choosing another option. The JS world has become a marketing machine.

I don't think the abovementioned course creator works in Gatsby, Inc, or contributes significantly (I see a few small pull requests) to the Gatsby open source project.

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#73

Post by galactus »

Aeolun wrote: post #58
joostdecock wrote: post #39

The first complaint in this is review is that markdown isn't rendered in custom MDX components, using this example: ``` PUT/DELETE methods only apply to updating/deleting issues. Events in sentry are immutable and can only be deleted by deleting the whole issue. ``` And goes on to shiw their ugly hack to make it work. Well, markdown in custom MDX components is rendered. You only need to leave a line break to signal t…

> Which I really don't find to be a deal breaker. If my content requires two extra line breaks that do not serve any purpose beyond dealing with the vagarities of the generator (where there is absolutely no reason it should work that way), that does not bode well for my further experiences.

Bleh, if you really want to mix JSX and Markdown you should expect at least some syntactic idiosincrasies

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#74

Post by onion2k »

pkalinowski wrote: post #3

I wonder why it seems nobody wants to use Hugo. Smashing Magazine appears to be happy with it and they tooted about their experience with Hugo multiple times. Instead, everyone chooses Gatsby, Next or another javascript based framework of this week.

Hugo have thousands of users.

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#75

Post by onion2k »

jmisavage wrote: post #21

Surprised they didn’t try Eleventy. I was just reading how a Mozilla team converted their extension documentation to it from Jekyll because it has support for Jekyll’s template language via a plugin. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/10/to-eleventy-and-beyond/

I moved my website to Eleventy recently and it's been a fantastic experience.

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#78

Post by prepend »

znpy wrote: post #46

I wonder... If Jekyll worked better, wouldn't have been better to just invest some time in learning enough ruby to make jekyll fit their needs?

I thought the same thing. I would like to know more about why they wanted to switch.

I use Jekyll for a few sites that benefit from gitflow around markdown collaboration and it’s pretty solid. I read about other generators and if something is easier or better I’m interested.

But for me, it seems Jekyll solved this problem years ago. And it has good docs, active development, etc.

The few people I know who switched off of it did so for what seems like arbitrary reasons to me. A group I collaborate with switched to gatsby because they said some of their developers couldn’t run Ruby on their workstations. And I guess switching their generator to gatsby was easier than figuring out that problem :)

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#79

Post by chadlavi »

It's amazing to me that there's still not a super simple create react app option out there that builds a react app based on markdown sources for pages. You can get close to it with gatsby et al., but they're all twiddly or fragile in their own ways.

Re: An Honest Review of Gatsby

#80

Post by azangru »

pkalinowski wrote: post #3

I wonder why it seems nobody wants to use Hugo. Smashing Magazine appears to be happy with it and they tooted about their experience with Hugo multiple times. Instead, everyone chooses Gatsby, Next or another javascript based framework of this week.

As many other comments are saying, because it's Go.

The majority of developers who use static-site generators professionally are frontend developers. Their language of choice is javascript or typescript. And if many are complaining about the inconvenience of writing graphql plugins — in javascript! — for Gatsby, imagine the annoyance of having to write the logic for your build step in an entirely different language. In Go, or in Ruby for that matter. It isn't fun. You can't easily use the skills you developed in javascript to tweak the behavior of the static site generator to your liking. You can't extend its behavior by writing a custom plugin. You feel constrained, and at the mercy of Hugo maintainers. It's very disheartening.

However. There is a fantastic alternative both to Hugo (by being javascript-based) and to Gatsby/Next (by not requiring React for the simplest hello world). Its name is Eleventy, and it is beautiful!

Post reply on HN