Be careful! Following a link in the blog post to simonberens.me redirected me to a page instructing me to install malware under the guise of security verification.
If you wished, you rather had a large bezel than the notch, go to System Settings > Displays > Alt+Click on a resolution > Show all resolutions, and select the one that is a little less high than your current one. Then the pixels left and right of your notch go dark.
Because you will attract people who will want to take advantage of the trust these 3.8k stars signal to some people, for example, by means of supply chain attacks.
This page looks like an accessibility nightmare. The entire warning text is an image. There is no transcription present for screen reader users. I did not expect this from a government website.
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'?
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?
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.
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.