Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#2Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#3So... it's a static site generator? I've looked through the site, but I'm having trouble putting it in context. Sounds like it takes data and turns it into a static website. Is that right?
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#4[flagged]
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#5I'm not sure if we need another bundler, but this one surely has the best name.
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#6[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#7The metaphor is strained at best, and confusing at worst. It's a very high-concept pitch and so is the technical documentation, but the use case is aimed at people doing something, ultimately, very simple. I'm not sure that friction works at all.
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#8My interest in this is piqued. I’m really happy to see people doing things to simplify personal standalone website authorship making it expressive and flexible without a bulky content management system or jumping through hoops for some front-end toolchain. I know when I’m developing things I’m often as or more concerned with satisfying multiple use cases or functionality extensibility, but having a nice focused tool polished for one use case is nice. When I was deep in web dev and had my machine set up with a selection of go-to docker setups for different dev needs and the knowledge of how that all needed to be orchestrated was fresh in my mind, deploying most of the SSGs or whatever seemed trivial. Now in the odd event that I have a personal project or whatever that indicates more than just a few static handmade pages, the first thing I do after looking up what todays web world consider to be the “obvious” best tools and practices is see how many people are asking about counterintuitive config issues or other getting-started type problems. As cool as whatever application might look, I know I’ve got about two good hours in me of recall, research and troubleshooting before I just say “fuck it. Guess I didn’t want to do that project anyway.” The point of those tools is to save time and energy — you don’t have to get very far outside “the loop” for it to take more effort than it’s worth to get back in for a lot of them. Simple tools for simple tasks are great when you know you’ll never ever need built-in hooks to wrangle graphql queries and automatically invalidate CDN caches and generate 10 sizes of images optimized for every conceivable device or whatever.
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#9Don't hate it but it feels like the Origami language should just be a typescript library. I'm not a fan of DSLs in general though.
Re: Web Origami, for making websites where you can understand how they’re made
#10[flagged]
From your description I expected a pile of legalese, but in reading it... I don't see "passive-aggressive" I see simple etiquette guidelines that shouldn't have to be said, but... clearly do.
Often users screaming "I won't use [your project] if you don't fix [my whim]!"** actually does get some traction. So saying explicitly in the readme that that is rude and won't be allowed seems ... healthy.
Notably, because it's just one dude's passion project, not a corporate-backed such-n-such, we don't want him resenting ever creating it, right?
** (or, to wit, "if you don't change your README I wouldn't want to use this." lol)