Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can't disagree more.

Static websites are valid and incredibly relevant, no need to prop up the friends at Remix (which is a nice product, just not the end all, be all - we were doing this 20 years ago as well).

You can very well show changes immediately with different strategies - but having a single artifact of what's online is invaluable. Caching dynamic content is fine, but having a log of what changed is nice as well.

A setup I like particularly is to have a real time cms available privately or locally - and a big publish button which build the static website and serve it.

That said, the only positive of today's web is that crossplatform compatibility is mostly a solved problem.

Performance went down the drain to the point that you need a beefy computer to browse multiple websites at once. Data usage is at all time high. Browsing on a payg phone is pretty expensive.

The development world went batshit crazy (likely driven to resume driven development and cargo culting), which means your average codebase today is massively more un-neededly complicated compared to your average codebase 20 years ago.

Development experience in your average codebase is also way slower with all that transpiling (running on a scripting language with bad performances). My rust feedback loop (not the fastest compiler among backend languages) is faster than my typescript one.

20 years ago I loved creating websites, despite the challenges. Today, I try to avoid it as much as I can and do backend.

I still create frontend for my own websites and it's overall as great as 20 years ago - but I don't use the slow mainstream tools which I'm forced to use when working with clients.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: