Gregory's ServerFraming this Twitter exchange on my wall
(sorry for the Twitter link, but it’s worth it https://twitter.com/karrisaarinen/status/1769101933480911033)
 36 comments
 @zachleat as if millions of sub-3G network connections suddenly cried out and were suddenly silenced @beep congrats to all my Empire friends, just seeing that the Death Star raised a new Series A round of $4.2T!! anyway, here’s Eleventy’s version in two commands: echo '# Page header' > index.md and the output is `<h1>Page header</h1>`  @randomgeek I like building web sites and I would like to keep doing it more please 😅   @hi_mayank yeah—a fair question! I’ve hit this a few times too as I slowly gravitate towards recommending using a `content` or `src` folder by default. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives though—the onramp with immediate markdown support is hard to beat. We couldn’t do a default `content`/`src` folder either because that would require an additional folder creation step or even head towards a boilerplate CLI which I have a real hard time getting onboard with. @zachleat maybe not a `src` folder but a `pages` folder that's a different thing from the input dir. everything (including *.MD) inside `pages` could generate an .html file, and everything outside will still be considered by 11ty but not used as pages. onboarding: @hi_mayank I like `pages`! How you describe `pages` is exactly how the input folder operates! You can change your input folder to be anything, currently: Onboarding: $ touch pages/index.html I wonder if this would be a better thing to try out in our quickstart! @zachleat in my mind, the difference between `pages` and `input` is that the includes and layouts are currently relative to the input folder and default to being inside of it. (the `_` prefix certainly helps tho) also i should have tried `touch pages/index.html` before posting. 🤦 it needs to be `mkdir pages && touch pages/index.html` @hi_mayank classic issue #67, I’ll try to add support for this https://github.com/11ty/eleventy/issues/67 😭   @zachleat this whole thread gives me the icks personally i don't even care about "view source", but the OP literally asked for a simple tool that does templating! replying with a framework that adds hundreds of KBs of JS and *also* inlines the whole page as json is already 😬. but then the CEO goes and defends it instead of admitting fault (or simply that it's maybe not the right tool for the job) @hi_mayank Yeah, not a good look. I do think the immediate assumption that Karri was complaining about “View Source” says a lot.   @zachleat This broke my fucking brain. All that to build something that looks like the first web page ever made. 🤦🏻♂️ @GoOz @zachleat Although React is messed up to use for anything these days. It made some sense for a SPA where you can pay the relatively big size of the thing, but now it is all about RSC, and NextJS doesn't help with pushing alpha quality stuff for production use where basic things like CSS is not loading for dynamic imports when using App Router which they now recommend despite still not working for everything.  GoOz, having watched this, I don't understand why anyone would use React for anything. Want a blog or a "business card" website or something for docs for your project? Use a static site generator like Hugo. Want something dynamic? Build a server application with any stack you like and render your pages server-side. (this comment was proudly served to you by such a server application) |
@zachleat i just saw the phrase “view source aesthetic” and suddenly my laptop was floating down the charles river, what is even happening over there