Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator

Re:Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator by mseebach on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:08AM (#5774883)

"Write rich web applications using the latest technologies without having to host your own node.js servers [...] No matter what plugins you use, the output will always be a static website you can host anywhere."

I don't think that's a very common definition of "rich web application".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator by rwinn on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:18AM (#5774925)

Thanks, fixed now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator by MatthewPhillips on Monday May 27, 2013 @12:05PM (#5775112)

Why not?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator by stdbrouw on Monday May 27, 2013 @12:13PM (#5775142)

Because it excludes most forms of interactivity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator by twerquie on Monday May 27, 2013 @12:22PM (#5775182)

I disagree, many applications can be defined entirely in client-side code.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wintersmith – a flexible static site generator by rwinn on Monday May 27, 2013 @12:32PM (#5775228)

After looking it up I see it is commonly used to describe something that adds extra features to a browser, like flash or silverlight.

Previously I took it to mean "rich in interactivity". That's what I meant when I originally wrote that, a static site does not mean you can't have interactive content. IMHO the best way to write webapps is to have a static client that consumes an API provided by a standalone backend.

[ Parent | on HN ]