[eliasdaler]

Indeed. I used as little CSS as I could because I love minimalist websites. And the lack of syntax highlighting was inspired by Go blog, for example. :)

Raw HTML definitely looks much uglier, sadly (“Reader mode” in most browsers makes websites without CSS easily readable, though!).

[cristoperb]

Your site looks nice and is quite readable! The thing I most dislike about sites that just use raw HTML is the lack of `max-width` on the text containers (which makes using reader mode necessary), so thanks for including that

[eliasdaler]

Thank you! :)

[johnnyanmac]

reminds me a lot of http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

pretty much all HTML, with only the bare minimum CSS to make it somewhat responsive.

I guess if you want one tiny piece of feedback, based on the above site:

>A little less contrast

>Black on white? How often do you see that kind of contrast in real life? Tone it down a bit, asshole. I would've even made this site's background a nice #EEEEEE if I wasn't so focused on keeping declarations to a lean 7 fucking lines.

I agree with the advice, but I've definitely seen many a heated debate over raw black on raw white amongst designers. So take with a grain of salt and a handful of personal preference.

[wizzwizz4]

> Black on white? How often do you see that kind of contrast in real life?

In books. If you have really high-end hardware where you have enough contrast to be painful, turn down your contrast setting. On regular-person devices, grey-on-grey is needlessly hard to read, and there's no way to turn the contrast up without introducing clipping.