Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah, typically I end up building websites (for myself and others) in basically three "lanes". Static HTML/CSS files, great for docs, presentations, reports and similar. Or, websites with some interactive/dynamic elements, HTMX is great for this. Or, fully fledged "client-side apps" where it's more of an application than website, then I go full out dynamic programming with ClojureScript and similar approaches.

I'm not sure why so many people seemingly fall into the trap of trying to find one tool and then use that absolutely everywhere. I mean, I'm familiar with it as in "it's fun" as I used Nix as a framework for a static website builder, but I keep seeing people making those sort of choices professionally too. Like when React first became popular, then suddenly people try to jam it into absolutely everything, until they slowly walk back and then after some years agree that maybe it's good for some things, not for everything and not as a default.

 help



As someone who has conducted a ton of systems design interviews, the "I used these tools at my last job so I will use them for this completely different problem" is bamboozling.

OTOH, there are advantages to comfort picks. You know the APIs, you know the common libraries in the ecosystem, you know the quirks and pitfalls. It might not be optimal—and in production it compounds—but for dinky personal projects or finite-scoped professional things, it's understandable.


Ha, that was me and Hugo, back in the day, for static sites.

And, yeah, HTMX is truly great for sites with limited interactivity. You really, really do not want or need a full React Leaning Tower of Pisa stack for a simple presentational website.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: