28
Fast-Nop
337d

Special 2022 greetings to the last of us who still run truly static websites: update your footer template, recompile, upload.

Comments
  • 4
    Honestly it’s the only sensible way.
    Using HTML for websites is like using stone to build a castle. It’s great as long as it’s static.
    But then people started to build dynamic things with HTML and it’s like using stone to build an engine with lots of moving parts.
    It’s possible but a pain in the ass. For both, the devs and the users.
    And for some reason nobody is seriously trying to find better materials beside stone. There were a few attempts but when they failed the people just started to think that nothing beats stone and started using it even more and for everything.
    😣
  • 2
    Static sites rules.
    If it's not a shop, something that requires a account or a dB... Why complicate....
  • 1
    ... recompile?
    what?
  • 1
    @Midnight-shcode Self-explanatory if you have ever worked with any sort of SSG.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop i don't even know how to parse that acronym and what it's supposed to be.
    style-sheet gobbledygook?
    style scripting gunk?
  • 1
    @Midnight-shcode Static Site Generator. Putting content and template together for the final HTML output can be regarded as compilation.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop oh.
    interesting, i don't think i ever heard of any SSG, unless ms word's or Help&Manual's "export as website" function counts/makes them part of that cathegory.
  • 0
    @Lensflare uh... so no API calls for you? Good luck building websites for about 1% of the use cases out there
  • 0
    You guys all realize that using a framework (like the infamous boogy man react, vue, etc.) doesnt mean that you cant build a static site right? Have you guys heard of Gatsby or Next? They can generate static sites but omg they use React and Node!!! Not understanding a framework or how they work is no excuse to stick with the "tried and true" methods of 20 years ago
  • 1
    @fullstackchris A lot of things like blogs and brochure sites work fine with just HTML and CSS. No JS framework required. No JS at all actually. Makes the download faster and works also for NoScript users.

    Start without any JS and only add it when it's actually necessary. That is the same whether the site is static or not. Maybe for complex widgets if they provide a user benefit, or for some (some!) API calls for dynamic data (JAM-stack).

    JS framework solve a specific problem: complex cross-dependencies between dynamic data to avoid the previous JQuery spaghetti hell. If you don't have that problem, don't use its solution.

    If you really are at a point where a JS framework makes sense, then a static site will almost certainly not be the best option anyway, e.g. something like Facebook.
Add Comment