[onion2k]

I think it's really good. I often wonder how people learn to make websites these days - I made my first 20 years ago when it was all a lot more straightforward. Even a basic site needs a huge amount groundwork now.

The only comments I have is that it's technically "web design" rather than "web development", and there's nothing about taking the work the user has done and putting it on a server somewhere so other people can see it. It'd be a shame for someone to work through the whole thing and not have a working website at the end.

Awesome work.

[tbranyen]

Nothing had changed in the web stack that would prevent someone from building a webpage the same way as 20 years ago. Text editor and a browser...

[jordanlev]

This is true but misleading. You could make a similar statement about any field where technology improves over time. For example, "nothing has changed in the manufacturing process that would prevent someone from building an automobile the same way as 60 years ago" -- sure someone could build it that way, but it doesn't mean it would be a successful product compared to other things currently on the market.

And I am not talking about using different frameworks / compiled languages / etc... I'm talking about the improved techniques we've developed over the years combined with new features in browsers, such as:

* HTML5 vs. HTML4 (streamlined and more consistent syntax in a lot of places)

* Float-based grid systems for layout

* Flexbox(!) for alignment

* media queries and picture/srcset for responsive design (heck, the whole concept of responsive design)

* web fonts (not being limited to the dozen or so that are available through the OS only)

* BEM methodology (having a modular mindset about styling components, combined with avoiding specificity issues by just using a class for everything)

...and that's just plain old HTML and CSS... don't even get me started about javascript (even just JS/ES5!)

[enraged_camel]

>>but it doesn't mean it would be a successful product compared to other things currently on the market.

Why are you assuming said website needs to be successful on the market? Maybe it's a personal website or a hobby project.

[mod]

When I starting building websites in ~1998, I looked at what was on the web, it inspired ideas, and I built things.

If I were starting now, my inspiration would possibly be things like: responsive, single-page apps, with ajax, websockets, etc.

I was going everywhere and viewing source and you could basically figure out how everything was made. Now--not so much.

It's not so much 'success' as similarity with popular projects.

[jordanlev]

I guess I meant "the marketplace of ideas". I'd think someone who wants to learn how to build websites in 2017 wants to learn how to build modern websites in 2017.

[onion2k]

The tech is the same; what's changed is the user's expectations.

[CaptSpify]

The tutorials have. I agree with you, the same things I learned 10 years ago are still relevant. But every tutorial out there now basically preaches that you need to learn $new_hot_language, and $new_hot_framework. For a beginner that doesn't know any better, it can sound like those are necessary.

[8ig8]

Go grab the latest release of Arachnophilia and have at it...

http://arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/index.php

(Pleasantly surprised to see this is still going strong after 20+ years.)