|
> I have no clue how you discerned this from the description, but I'd like to understand more. One way of understanding the meaning of a dubious phrase is examining its use in context. For example, one of the pages of the Astro docs begins as follows: "Astro is the web framework for building content-driven websites like blogs, marketing, and e-commerce" [0] Ok; so we have our prototypes — or, as Jason Miller would call them, holotypes — of the mysterious "content-driven websites". They are blogs, marketing sites, or e-commerce sites. Another way of understanding the meaning of a confusing phrase is hearing the distinction explained by the creator of the framework. In early podcasts, when Astro was still mostly unknown, Fred Schott explained that it was not intended for building something like Figma, or Photoshop, or Facebook, or Youtube; but rather something like blogs or magazines; although primarily he was probably targeting the creators of e-commerce websites, because those were the ones that could bring in money. [0] https://docs.astro.build/en/concepts/why-astro/ |
Ok, but opposed to what? What does a non-content oriented website look like? Is a website itself not simply content?
> Fred Schott explained that it was not intended for building something like Figma, or Photoshop, or Facebook, or Youtube
Perhaps their tagline should be "we aren't oriented around building single page websites unlike all those other frameworks". I never would have understood that Figma, Photoshop, and Youtube were not content-oriented websites otherwise. "Content" is mostly not a meaningful phrase outside of a context which gives it meaning (i.e. it is a floating signifier).