i like to make websites and I've been slowly realizing that my requirements for making websites might be a little weird

@b0rk

I don't know that is necessarily dictates a different tech choice, but I think it dictates making sure it's documented / annotated sufficiently, including any and all stuff you use to automate the test/version control/build/deploy/patch/etc bits that sit around the sides of "it"...

Incomplete documentation and/or annotation is the #1 thing that bites me in the arse when I come back to something, personally speaking.

@b0rk sqlite is brilliant! I didn't understand why more people don't use it until I realized that with #flask, using the builtin sqlite in #python that it doesn't support threading and concurrency properly!

@eta @b0rk the laws of thermodynamics tell us the new hotness will become the old tepidity

@b0rk 2 more thoughts that haven't been touched on, but maybe make sense to mention:

- Make sure your theme brings all its JS, CSS and fonts with itself. (Independence from CDN disappearance)
- Use native HTML focused CSS frameworks like simplecss, because it makes porting content much easier.

@b0rk I feel the same way about websites generally. Also about languages lately. Like, I feel like go has so much good about it but also I feel like it is a language I would have to be using full time to really write good go so I avoid using it.

@adamw @b0rk I wrote a Makefile for that.

@b0rk After I had a personal site sink into unmaintainability, I created a framework that I hope can work for more than a decade without any changes or updates

The key was making every build step skippable. It’s all enhancement from basic HTML. If my syntax-colorer breaks in 2029 the site still builds

@vathpela @b0rk ...but then I'd need a README to remind me of the make arguments...

@b0rk imnsho your requirements are absolutely sane and not weird at all

@b0rk @mauve yeah, our experience is that if something claims to be lightweight but won't serve a single request without being able to talk to postgres, it is lying about being lightweigjt

@b0rk

The rule of thumb I am using is that predicted lifetime = how long it has been available. The idea is that you’re probably in the middle of a tool’s lifetime.

Major version changes that force difficult, complex migration reset the clock. (This is why venture funding tends to accelerate an open source project’s demise.)

So, sqlite and bash look safe for as long as I expect to be programming. 11ty… wouldn’t count on it.

@b0rk @Bredroll I remember this helping me quite a bit: https://fractaledmind.com/2023/09/07/enhancing-rails-sqlite-fine-tuning/

@art_codesmith thanks!

@b0rk I find myself on the opposite side of this thinking a lot. Where I’m trying to predict what my forward compatibility and thinking will be three months down the line when I come back to the five minute update project.

@b0rk i very much get the feeling. i have some Old websites i’m scared to look at too closely because those (server-side) web framework versions probably have known vulnerabilities

regarding not using JS build systems, do lock files (specifying precise versions of everything) change the equation for you? as far as i understand npm didn’t always have them

@b0rk You sound like most small businesspeople I know. They visibly cringe when someone tells them they have to keep their site "fresh" to attract visitors.

@simon lock files don’t change anything no

@b0rk Semi-answering your other question about Django, it’s reassuring that the framework has been developed for 20 years means the chances of it still running well in another twenty are not bad. The mature tools are better at surviving, I think.

Recently I upgraded a neglected project running version 1.11 (under Python 2) to the newest 5.2 LTS and the site is running happily with it. Interestingly the only problem-maker was a third party plugin.

@b0rk I love that your response to this is a simple Gist on GitHub. Not only do you prefer to use static sites, but "here is a static file to host my answer about static sites"... Very on brand.

@b0rk Good plan - so many of my write-and-forget tools have a "runme.sh" wrapper to encapsulate the PATH, venv, and whatever other requirements. It's good to have an obvious entry point.