Comment by pigbearpig
5 hours ago
Respectfully, I don't understand this. They never needed Next.js for a static blog.
This is like writing a post about how I didn't need a Ferrari to commute to work and I saved money by taking the bus.
5 hours ago
Respectfully, I don't understand this. They never needed Next.js for a static blog.
This is like writing a post about how I didn't need a Ferrari to commute to work and I saved money by taking the bus.
Next.js supports fully static export, so they should have went with that.
I run a dynamic website on nextjs static export - landingpages and docs are fully static, login and user dashboard use REST calls to a non-nextjs backend. Blazing fast, no nodejs or SSR in production.
Next.js supports fully static export, so they should went with that.
Keeping an unnecessary dependency for legacy reasons is never a good move. Be bold and delete things. Your software will be better for it.
Wouldn't say unnecesarry. Nextjs static export has features such as dynamic chunking, eager-loading of chunks when you hover over a link, routing etc. With a plugin you get image optimization (different image quality levels and dimensions based on viewport size) etc.
But yes, another static site blog generator would also work.
1 reply →
The static export still keeps a large JS bundle which is mostly unnecessary
Astro blows away next.js for static sites, especially blogs.
Care to elaborate and backup you wild claim with some facts?
1 reply →
I think we should blame the elders for teaching people new to the trade wrong.
Because "heavyweight SPA for a static blog" isn't exactly a rare problem.
It's more like they realised they can also commute by bike or foot never realizing before that that was even an option
exactly just use a ssg like zola/hugo and call it a day smh