Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by brettermeier | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

brettermeier

So stable it won't load... EDIT: Ahhh... nearly 30 seconds later something is happening

View on HN

I truly wonder, in the age of free CDNs and basically completely static content, why stability is even a question

People who like to program are gonna program

> and basically completely static content

If one looks at the Wayback Machine's snapshot of this thread's blog post, the right sidebar of recent comments and links appear to be dynamically generated.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220831120513/http://lambda-the...

a cron-job that hourly scrapes comments and pushes the sidebar as html to s3 would be just fine, thanks. Who needs minute-by-minute playback if it requires dedicated machines to admin, and slows down delivery of content when under load.

Seems a bit over-engineered to involve the cloud. Put it in a file on disk instead.

I normally think that. But I've really enjoyed hosting in s3. It's painless and fast.

Given the choice between running a few coherent scripts to host my niche community site and architecting a high-performance community content distribution platform with an AWS account and variable, uncapped costs, I too would choose the latter.

But that’s also why I don’t stand up a lot of these sites. Maybe it’s overkill?

It really seems people hate hosting in s3.

It was way faster to push my html than it was to stand up a server, set up https, etc, and host it myself.

But the point I wanted to make was that static content is painfully easy to host and almost infinitely scalable by itself

> It really seems people hate hosting in s3.

Read the parent comment. People running small sites hate "variable, uncapped costs" and consequently hate AWS.

Amazon could do something about this. People complain about this constantly. The fact that Amazon actively chooses not to do something about this speaks quite loudly to their intentions.

This is fair. It was my mistake to bring up my preferred method of hosting static sites, because that dredges up vitriol around that method.

My point was that it's almost trivial to get 80% of the functionality of a dynamic site with a static site.

I think LtU is fairly low-traffic normally, so even though the content is (probably) relatively static other than the comments it might not make sense for them to design it for extreme volumes of traffic. And given that this link was probably submitted to HN, a few subreddits and possibly more sites it's easy to imagine they suddenly got that kind of volume.

...except that it fairly regularly gets an influx of HN submissions.

Yeah it gets submissions, but it doesn't usually sit at the top of the front page for an hour (+ whatever other sites this news item got submitted to)

I see people worry about technology replacing developers.

I don't think it will ever happen because of how grossly incompetent most companies are. It would give big tech an advantage, everyone else will continue employing developers because they don't know any better.

In fact, generating static HTML for every comment may be more in the spirit of functional programming.

I’d imagine that the average load isn’t heavy, so designing for the HN Hug would be overkill.

Edit: loaded two seconds for me.

was about to say

Reply on news.ycombinator.com