I think some of this article resonates with me, but I also think a big part of it rubs me the wrong way. It seems to assume that everyone has a webserver running a LAMP stack. If you have a static site on a webserver running PHP then of course PHP is going to require the least amount of effort to make your site mildly dynamic.
On the other hand, if you have nothing, I don't think that the fastest/easiest way to a mildly dynamic website is to use PHP.
I got curious about the most minimalist setup I could get for running a static site that would also easily transition to becoming dynamic piece-by-piece. Here's what I came up with using NextJS:
3. Create your home page at `app/page.js`. This is pretty much just what your index.html would have been before except it's wrapped with `export default () => (/.../)`:
Now, when you want to make one of your html files dynamic:
1. Move it from `public/your-page.html` to `app/your-page/page.js`
2. Wrap it with `export default () => (/.../)`
And there you go, you can start using JavaScript and JSX in your page.
Here's a summary of the differences between this approach and creating a PHP-based site:
1. You have to create 2 more files containing 13 more lines of code than you would with PHP
2. You need to find a NextJS web host rather than a PHP web host
3. Your dynamic pages are html-inside-javascript rather than php-inside-html. You are also technically writing JSX and not HTML, which has slightly different syntax.
4. You have a much easier to set up local dev server (Install `node`, then `npm install` and `npm dev`)
5. This framework can scale pretty seamlessly to "highly dynamic", whereas with PHP you'd probably need to introduce a frontend framework if you wanted to create something actually "highly dynamic".
6. You only need to learn one programming language (JavaScript) instead of two (JavaScript and PHP).
> It seems to assume that everyone has a webserver running a LAMP stack.
Shared hosts are pretty near a dime a dozen. Or just `apt-get install apache2 libapache2-mod-php` and you’re ready to go with no project changes.
> You have a much easier to set up local dev server (Install `node`, then `npm install` and `npm dev`)
Which version of node? Which version of npm? When I come back to this in six months am I going to find out some dependency relies on a dependency that relies on a dependency that only works on node 3.14 and end up installing nvm and stepping through versions trying to get this running?
For PHP I will need to install PHP. For this kind of stuff basically any version from the past decade will work. It’s in every package manager everywhere, has a windows installer, etc. (There’s a reason every PHP dev isn’t using a PHP equivalent to “PHP version manager”.)
Once that’s installed, just `php -S 127.0.0.1:8000` and open it in your browser. Serves all your static files and stuff too without any changes to any of them—an existing jumble of HTML and CSS is a 100% valid PHP project.
It’s usually substantially easier for me to get a ten year old PHP project running than a six month old JS project.
The one that comes with Node? Duh. Or just `npm update -g npm` to bring it up to the latest.
> ...a dependency that only works on node 3.14
So I know you're making crap up now because there was no such version. Node jumped right from 0.12.x to 4.x, as a result of a fork and associated project politics. [1]
And I've been working with Node projects for nearly a decade. I don't see "only works on older-verion-of-Node x.y" almost ever. You're thinking of Python and Ruby.
`nvm` exists because, yes, sometimes you want to run an older project in its exact environment. And it's super easy to install new versions or test under different versions Just In Case there's an issue. Sometimes newer releases only work on the latest Node, so you need to upgrade Node to update to the latest-and-greatest.
But frankly it's worth using Node (and TypeScript) just to not have to ever touch PHP again. It was an is a nightmare fractal of bad design. I'm never going back.
On the other hand, if you have nothing, I don't think that the fastest/easiest way to a mildly dynamic website is to use PHP.
I got curious about the most minimalist setup I could get for running a static site that would also easily transition to becoming dynamic piece-by-piece. Here's what I came up with using NextJS:
1. Create a `package.json` containing:
2. Create `app/layout.js` containing 3. Create your home page at `app/page.js`. This is pretty much just what your index.html would have been before except it's wrapped with `export default () => (/.../)`: 4. Put the rest of your static files in `/public`Now, when you want to make one of your html files dynamic:
1. Move it from `public/your-page.html` to `app/your-page/page.js`
2. Wrap it with `export default () => (/.../)`
And there you go, you can start using JavaScript and JSX in your page.
Here's a summary of the differences between this approach and creating a PHP-based site:
1. You have to create 2 more files containing 13 more lines of code than you would with PHP
2. You need to find a NextJS web host rather than a PHP web host
3. Your dynamic pages are html-inside-javascript rather than php-inside-html. You are also technically writing JSX and not HTML, which has slightly different syntax.
4. You have a much easier to set up local dev server (Install `node`, then `npm install` and `npm dev`)
5. This framework can scale pretty seamlessly to "highly dynamic", whereas with PHP you'd probably need to introduce a frontend framework if you wanted to create something actually "highly dynamic".
6. You only need to learn one programming language (JavaScript) instead of two (JavaScript and PHP).