undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspoonfeeder0061y ago0 comments

Isn't using React with a static site generator framework basically the same thing but better?

0 comments

culi1y ago

Not remotely! Unless you meant Preact. React ships an entire rendering engine to the front-end. Most sites that use React won't load anything if javascript isn't enabled

1 more reply

mrweasel1y ago

Then you'd have to learn React, and for many of us the point is that we really don't want to learn React, or other frontend frameworks.

datavirtue1y ago

Yes, if you want to throw up in your mouth.

1 more reply

realusername1y ago

In theory yes, in practice good luck maintaining that if you are just a solo blogger.

I doubt your blog would last a single month without some breaking change of some sort in one of the packages.

spoonfeeder006OP1y ago

you mean npm packages? why would you need to update those anyhow?

realusername1y ago

Because at some point it will cease to work? It needs upgrades like any other project.

Every upgrade in the JS world is very painful.

2 more replies

lmm1y ago

Yes, it is. Unfortunately HN has a crazy bias against JavaScript (the least crazy part of the web stack) and in favour of HTML and CSS, even though the latter are worse in every meaningful way.

dickersnoodle1y ago

It isn't crazy, judging by the number of times I've seen posts here and on other blogs talking about a 100k web page ballooning to 8Mb because of all the Javascript needed to "collect page analytics" or do user tracking when ads are included. Granted that may not be needed for personal websites, but for almost anything that has to be monetized you're going to get stuck with JS cancer because some sphincter in a suit needs for "number to go up".

lmm1y ago

> I've seen posts here and on other blogs talking about a 100k web page ballooning to 8Mb because of all the Javascript needed to "collect page analytics" or do user tracking when ads are included

Perfect example. HN will see a page with 6Mb of images/video, 1Mb of CSS and 200Kb of JavaScript and say "look at how much the JavaScript is bloating that page".

oneeyedpigeon1y ago

I don't even know where to begin with the pretence that you can compare HTML with JS and somehow conclude that one is 'better' than the other. They are totally different things. JS is for functionality, and if you're using it to serve static content, you're not using it as designed.

lmm1y ago

I don't particularly care about "designed for". If you've got to serve something to make the browser display the static content you want it to, the least unpleasant way to do so is with JS.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

culi1y ago

Not remotely! Unless you meant Preact. React ships an entire rendering engine to the front-end. Most sites that use React won't load anything if javascript isn't enabled

1 more reply

mrweasel1y ago

Then you'd have to learn React, and for many of us the point is that we really don't want to learn React, or other frontend frameworks.

datavirtue1y ago

Yes, if you want to throw up in your mouth.

1 more reply

realusername1y ago

In theory yes, in practice good luck maintaining that if you are just a solo blogger.

I doubt your blog would last a single month without some breaking change of some sort in one of the packages.

spoonfeeder006OP1y ago

you mean npm packages? why would you need to update those anyhow?

realusername1y ago

Because at some point it will cease to work? It needs upgrades like any other project.

Every upgrade in the JS world is very painful.

2 more replies

lmm1y ago

Yes, it is. Unfortunately HN has a crazy bias against JavaScript (the least crazy part of the web stack) and in favour of HTML and CSS, even though the latter are worse in every meaningful way.

dickersnoodle1y ago

lmm1y ago

> I've seen posts here and on other blogs talking about a 100k web page ballooning to 8Mb because of all the Javascript needed to "collect page analytics" or do user tracking when ads are included

Perfect example. HN will see a page with 6Mb of images/video, 1Mb of CSS and 200Kb of JavaScript and say "look at how much the JavaScript is bloating that page".

oneeyedpigeon1y ago

lmm1y ago

I don't particularly care about "designed for". If you've got to serve something to make the browser display the static content you want it to, the least unpleasant way to do so is with JS.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse