I am unsure how this is supposed to work for CSS. To my knowledge, most CSS properties cannot be substituted for each other. If the subset to be enforced is "CSS properties already present", what is a developer supposed to do if their CSS property is not already present? Change the design?
Well, (like C++) new css attributes are constantly added. This means you constantly have to choose between the old way or the new way: either is fine, but “pick old or new at random on a per pull request basis” isn’t.
You seem to assume that old CSS properties can be substituted for new ones. But as I said, to my knowledge this isn’t possible in most cases. Can you give an example of two CSS properties where 'either is fine, but only one should be used'?
Or do you mean something else altogether by 'CSS attributes'?
One sits in my bathroom so I can browse random Wikipedia articles while I'm, uh, busy. The other one sits on my nightstand and plays audiobooks/podcasts when I'm going to sleep.
So nothing critical. But something they are still good at, and being very small makes them a natural fit for these use cases.
I can't speak for the other poster, but I like the idea a lot. Having tools with specific purposes means I can avoid using my phone for everything. No matter what games I play to remove notifications/interruptions/etc. it's always a distraction and easy to be distracted from whatever I originally intended to use the phone for.
I do use the phone for audible, but I started both uses before I had a smart phone (I was very late to the game), and I am a creature of habit. Plus the netbook has a bigger display, more storage, and a real keyboard (again, creature of habit).
I think since they used [todoId] in the example they mean a static page which does not exist at build time. Which both can do, it’s called ISG (or on-demand in the Astro docs), but it requires a server to work, or you can create a static route that accepts any parameters and pass those to JavaScript to run on the client.
I find it sad that Astro advertises itself this way, because I think that it is perfectly capable of building web projects of any complexity, simply by means of the component libraries you can plug in.
What makes it so great is not that it serves a particular niche (like "content-driven websites") but that it provides a developer experience that makes it incredibly easy to scale from a static website to something very complex and interaction-heavy without compromising UX.
Per default, Astro generates static pages. So it makes sense to compare it to an approach that doesn't.
Using a framework has upsides over writing static pages manually. Most notably, you can decompose your website into reusable components which makes your implementation more DRY. Also, you can fluently upgrade to a very interaction-heavy website without ever changing tech or architecture. But that's just what I value. I whole-heartedly recommend trying it out.
Production is more complicated than development. How would I express rolling updates or ingress with docker-compose?
Why not use Kubernetes for local dev (kind or minikube) instead of trying to make docker compose hacks for production?
Docker Swarm is rarely seen, I suspect industry has already settled on k8s as the standard
Working at a large scale I agree that using something like this doesn't make sense. But for indie hackers, small startups, or people wanting to deploy foss, they dont need all the complexities you are talking about. They have a app they want to deploy and generally, as cheap as possible.
You can run your Kube stack locally.. look into kind, minikube etc.. just exclude your LB configs and stuff from your helm charts and dial down the resourcing
The word 'object' has different meanings. One includes arrays and the other does not. They prefer the latter. You prefer the former. I don't think this has much to do with 'facts' and 'opinions', but rather with the practicality of choosing a certain way to speak.
I’d liken it to the word 'sorting'. JavaScript libraries sort in a certain way that is simple to implement. However, this is so different from what we typically mean by 'sorting' that people came up with natural sorting algorithms. Are these people treating facts like opinions on how to sort? I’d rather say, they acknowledge the relevance of a certain way to speak.
As someone who uses Astro a lot for (mostly) static pages, the two standout features of this approach that come to my mind are code sharing and the ease of integrating SSR/CSR where needed.
Components (be it Astro, Svelte, React, etc.) have a lovely API for sharing code across web pages. I used Hugo before and hit the limits of shortcodes pretty quickly. I can't comment on Jekyll though.
Furthermore, if the need for some dynamically rendered pages or client-side interactivity comes up, it is very easy to integrate this later on. I can build static, server-rendered and client-rendered pages (and everything in between) with the same set of tools, which means less mental load when I develop.
