Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tonyennis 951 days ago
"fully functioning pieces of complex software" - in my experience a majority of software is simply not that complex. And the few places where it is are not on the view layer. To make sure we're not talking past each other, can you give examples of the kinds of software you're talking about? We do quite a lot of react work too, but it's ~20% of the projects we work on, when advanced frontend interactivity is needed.
1 comments
codeptualize 951 days ago
> "Not that complex"

Even if you have a fully static website you generally have a navigation bar and footer that needs to be on multiple pages.

Things don't need to get very complex to benefit from frameworks and tooling.

link
zlg_codes 951 days ago
Are you really advocating for using frameworks as a glorified #include directive? Frameworks are necessary when the job you're doing is highly abstract and you're not totally picky about the result. They shine at those things, but they are overkill for a static website. Something like Pelican or Hugo would be better suited for that. Shit, you could roll your own SSG in a weekend.
link
codeptualize 951 days ago
So pelican and hugo are not frameworks? How is a static site generator any different from statically exporting next.js/nuxt.js or similar?

I've used all the things mentioned, and I quite like the ergonomics of frameworks for static websites. Added benefit is that I can make static sites dynamic if necessary.

And to be clear, these static exports are incredibly fast and performant.

> you could roll your own SSG in a weekend

Sure, I could do that, or I could build my app/website in that weekend..

link
zlg_codes 951 days ago
I can't speak for Hugo but no, Pelican is not a framework. It's a static site generator. I cannot make general purpose, dynamic websites with Pelican. I can fake a few things, I can hook it up to cron to mimic it, but Pelican itself is concerned primarily with your data store, your theme, and generating static files to upload directly to your webspace.

Sure, you can make plugins for Pelican to make it generate things the way you want, but it's still just a generator/builder using Jinja templates and Markdown or some other text transformation tool.

Also, there's no real indicator that I used Pelican to build my site. There's no cruft I'm including in my <head> element or anything else. It outputs regular-ass HTML.

I'm sure it's nice to be able to swap into dynamic web app mode if you decide a project's going differently than expected, but I don't run into that much with the things I design. I usually know from the beginning which tech I'll need to achieve the goal.

Frameworks force the dev into specific ways of doing things, so if a program fits into that architecture, go nuts. I'm curious what you guys need on your sites that require so much JS.

link
codeptualize 951 days ago
And it's totally fine if it works you, I'm not saying one is better, I'm saying both are valid choices and if you statically export from a framework, it's not that different from what you describe.

> Frameworks force the dev into specific ways of doing things

Not really. Take Next.js, you can also use markdown (or more dynamic flavors of markdown like MDX/markdoc), you can use a headless cms, it doesn't really matter..

If you don't like Next.js you can pick a different solution, there are many! If Pelican is your jam, by all means, it's a great tool.

> I'm curious what you guys need on your sites that require so much JS.

In my day to day I work more on web apps, but lets stick to "simple" websites. Example: Using Next.js again, out of the box it does instant navigation by preloading new content on hover, and not doing full refreshes when they aren't needed. Great for the user, less bandwidth used, much faster sites. That's just one example.

link
zlg_codes 951 days ago
> Example: Using Next.js again, out of the box it does instant navigation by preloading new content on hover, and not doing full refreshes when they aren't needed. Great for the user, less bandwidth used, much faster sites. That's just one example.

I don't understand what you mean here. What content is being preloaded, what is being hovered on, why do you need only partial page loads? Is this for a doomscrolling UI where units of content are presented one or a few at a time, on an infinite scroll?

When I do navigation I just build a <ul> and put <li>s in it, programmatically if need be. Click to go where you want. Takes a full page load, but that's just how the Web works because you're going to another page. Links take you to other pages.

Is this for like an image gallery?

link