docs VS astro

You can see the structure of different open-source Astro sites, for example the source code of the Astro documentation on GitHub.

Astro

As my website is just a bunch of static content, with only few interactive components, I chose Astro. And if I need to add something fancy, I won't have troubles adding it. For example, "Share" button is a Preact component (even if it didn’t have to be).

Local CMSs are the ones that are mostly file-based (like Statamic or Astro). This means that you can edit everything locally and deploy the data. This way, our CMS is more secure, but on the downside, you have to have a local server working, and you might experience more conflicts, especially when two people will work on the same article (although Git might save you from many of those). It also means that there is a higher learning curve. A remote CMS works somewhere on a server, and most users don't care how.

I've recently decided to recentralize all my articles on my own blog instead of publishing them to Hashnode (nothing wrong with Hashnode, just something that I had wanted to do for a while) and since I have a wondeful brand new personal site built with astro I decided to take advantage of their collection system and the new experimental (at least at the time of writing this article) view transitions api to build something a bit more tailored to what I like. Here's how it went.

I've previously written about Service Worker Side Rendering (SWSR) in this blog, when I was exploring running Astro in a Service Worker.

Astro is my personal favorite: https://astro.build/

It's like an SSG where you can write templates with modern components frameworks, and write content in MD / MDX. No JS is shipped by default, but you can opt in to it for interactivity.

There are many high-quality templates, but making your own custom styling and layouts is easy, and you can write CSS in whatever way you like.

MkDocs and Jekyll are more for docs in my opinion, but Hugo is pretty good if you hate javascript.

I would recommend Astro over 11ty 100% of the time, though. Both are JS, with slower build times etc than with Hugo, but Astro integrates better with the rest of the ecosystem.

Gatsby has apparently fallen off a cliff, wouldn't even consider it.

Congrats on the GitHub program! Very cool.

I just had a fresh read of the docs and htmx is refreshingly, gloriously simple. So natural, self-documenting, and well thought out. It _does_ feel like a natural extension of html.

To me, the only "missing" piece of htmx is a component model, but for anyone looking for that, htmx would pair amazingly well with Astro[1] which allows you to define and use html components without the runtime overhead of say Vue or React.

[1] http://astro.build

Damn it, I am using FF. But had no idea about this feature, I hope it gets implemented soon!

I wanted to refer to the "Full speed" section and ask why Nuxt has such a low score?

I hope this works anyway.

https://astro.build/#:~:text=Full%20speed

I just submitted a Github ticket; hope it is an easily solvable problem.

https://github.com/withastro/astro/issues/8055

Scroll to text fragments are your friend (though they are not in Firefox yet):

https://astro.build/#:~:text=Learn%20more%20in%20our%20docs