News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Next, Nest, Nuxt Nust?. Parent comment

Re:Next, Nest, Nuxt Nust? by Jenk on Sunday December 18, 2022 @05:52AM (#34036523)
Using a javascript/typescript framework to build static sites is so common place now that I'd even go as far as saying it's the standard.

Frankly, I hate working with raw HTML/CSS. It sucks. Using TSX is such a better developer experience. I'm much more productive in a nextjs app, even if it's just static, than I am with plain old markup.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Next, Nest, Nuxt Nust? by lanecwagner on Sunday December 18, 2022 @09:43AM (#34038128)
That's because you're looking at the wrong alternatives. check out Hugo
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Next, Nest, Nuxt Nust? by Jenk on Sunday December 18, 2022 @10:54AM (#34038819)
Not seen Hugo, but Htmx is looking interesting.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Next, Nest, Nuxt Nust? by toastal on Sunday December 18, 2022 @10:07AM (#34038354)
In the last few years I've moved away from JavaScript and frameworks in a lot of cases because writing raw HTML and CSS was not cumbersome, involved vastly simpler tooling, and didn't involve other folks needing to learn some obscure framework that may have gone out of fashion. HTML and CSS are here to stay and currently they serve their purpose very well. I don't agree with your take (J|T)SX obscure the HTML whose trench coat it's trying to wear with arbitrary rules that produce unexpected effects. If author HTML is considered a burden, I'm not sure how keeping something XML-like is going to make the ergonomics or readability better.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Next, Nest, Nuxt Nust? by Jenk on Sunday December 18, 2022 @10:54AM (#34038812)
I'll take those arbitrary rules if it lets me use component-driven design unlike raw HTML/CSS does. Very much a worthwhile trade off.
[ Parent | on HN ]