[input_sh]

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.

[hxii]

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?

[rchaud]

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'.

[JadeNB]

> 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'.

Your definition of ‘small website’ is certainly a reasonable one, but I think to claim that only a tech geek could think that ‘small’ meant ‘small file size’ is overstating it.

[rchaud]

I didn't say tech geek, I said HN. Tech geeks understand personal websites. Only on HN do those threads turn into monotonous pontifications about Hugo v Ghost or whether a site renders with JS turned off.