I'd rather read PGs essays on a great looking, fancy-ass website. Why the false dichotomy?
Because real life is full of dichotomies, and they are not all false. They even exist in our profession -- we call them "engineering tradeoffs".
Have you seen many "fancy-ass websites" with great essay content?
Perhaps you can find 1 or 2. I doubt you can find 10. There's a reason for that too. Most of the good writers I've read value simplicity, both in their writing and in their presentation. And, as they believe in the value of their content, they see no need to dress it on a "fancy-ass website".
That's what the whole "content first" / "minimalism" etc movement has been all about, from the 37 Signals blog to the emergence in our community of stuff like Jekyll.
And I don't see what the fancy-assness of the website would add to PG's essays. Care to enlighten me?
That doesn't justify the specific dichotomy you presented. Nor does the general lack of (vaguely defined) "fancy-ass" websites with good content.
In my opinion 37signals has a "fancy-ass" blog with solid content. It has a clean, pleasing look, displays well on mobile and browsers, and even provides a search interface. PG's essays could be better presented in all of these respects.
Maybe we should get your definition of "fancy-ass" so we can decide what we're even talking about.
Well, I'm a pragmatist. If I observe a "general lack" of a certain combination of things ("fancy ass websites" with "good content") I assume there's a reason for that.
It doesn't even matter if the connection is casual. It's enough that it exists, because that means that the presense of one ("fancy-assenss") is enough to predict with good success the lack of the other ("good content").
>In my opinion 37signals has a "fancy-ass" blog with solid content.
I see nothing fancy ass about 37signal's block. It's "clean, pleasing and displays well on mobile and broswers" not by some fancy-assness, but because it's minimal and bare-bones -- the very opposite of fancy-assents.
Essentially it's merely styled text.
>Maybe we should get your definition of "fancy-ass" so we can decide what we're even talking about.
Well, if we go by TFA's description, that would be anything that couldn't be achieved with HTML 4 and no JS.
Also, sites like Facebook, Google, etc. have done some pretty amazing stuff with this web platform, going well beyond what it was originally intended and "text and images." Has he ever looked at Google Docs?
I did, and still prefer to use a Desktop Office Suite. For the far better responsiveness, tons more features (I do use), and lack of dependence of Google.
"Here's a pro tip from a seasoned veteran of web development: if you want to do something really remarkable on a computer, you don't write it in HTML. You write it in C."
I've have finished high school since a long time. I don't write stuff to get "upvotes".
>"Here's a pro tip from a seasoned veteran of web development: if you want to do something really remarkable on a computer, you don't write it in HTML. You write it in C."
Gee, perhaps I've adreesed that, maybe in the part were I write specifically: "The peripheral details to his post [like] if he has a line about coding important apps in C and you disagree, don't matter".
Not only it doesn't matter (in the context of his actual message, with is about another thing altogether), but I agree with him.
95% of the important stuff we use to get amazing stuff done is written in C/C++. From our OSs and Word Processors, to Photoshop and our Browser. Heck, even Google Search is done in C++, and even Facebook had to create a C++ PHP VM to handle the amazing volume of data they do.
Seen any web stuff that's much more than "let's recreate stuff we had on desktop (See: Atwood's Law) with easier deployment but crappier performance and usability"?
And, more importantly, that doesn't depend of a huge stack of C/C++ code underneath? (From the JS JIT to the browser, to WebGL, to the OS down to the TCP/IP Stack).
It's ironic because all the websites he listed (with the exception of Craigslist) have incredibly complex front-ends.
For a site were tons of people speak of the value of simplicity, and every other day they "Show HN" their own "static site generator", it's surprising how many people do NOT get his message.
First, he is not a web developer. He is a busines owner that also had to create a site for his business. He chose to follow the KISS principle, and that's what he advocates: catering to content first, fancy stuff second (or never at all).
The peripheral details to his post (if he personally uses Flash for some stuff but you don't like it, or if he has a line about coding important apps in C and you disagree) don't matter.
What matters is that for content websites --which makes most of them out there, including all blogs and brochure-ware sites --, his advice is spot on.
As for his website "looking like crap" (as 1-2 people comment below). That's the whole point. As long as it gets the job done he doesn't care. And it's not worse than Hacker News (no paragon of great web design) or Paul Graham's site.
Would you rather read PGs eassays in his website, or some moron's zero-content marketing fluff on a great looking, fancy-ass website, with CSS 3D transforms and the whole works?