It is kinda ironic having this debate on a platform that isn’t static html
Comment on Why can't we have a static vintage web?
jeena@piefed.jeena.net 3 weeks ago
It wasn’t better. Static pages are just boring, you read it one time and then that’s it. Not enough people can write plain HTML so it would matter.
The internet today with Lemmy, Mastodon, etc. is way closer to what Tim Berners-Lee imagined that everyone would be a publisher, not only consumer.
moseschrute@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Slotos@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
This is one of those times when the attempt to address the wrong part of a statement immediately goes into Ackermann-like recursion.
The only irony present is the pretense of validity of the supposed contradiction.
clmbmb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
You don’t have to know or write plain HTML. There are plenty of static page generators that take markdown and generate a site for you. Also, boring is good and yes, read once and don’t care next is also good: it’s how books work for thousands of years. If you like a site or article/post you’ll get back to it sometime, if not that’s OK.
Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
It’s easier to learn and write plain HTML than it is to use a static page generator. I will die on this hill. Static page generators are all needlessly complicated because they are made by developers for developers.
jeena@piefed.jeena.net 3 weeks ago
Static page generator is already half way to a blog with a database.