Hacker News Reader

"Write rich web applications using the latest technologies without having to host your own node.js servers [...] No matter what plugins you use, the output will always be a static website you can host anywhere."

I don't think that's a very common definition of "rich web application".

View on HN

Thanks, fixed now.

Why not?

Because it excludes most forms of interactivity.

I disagree, many applications can be defined entirely in client-side code.

After looking it up I see it is commonly used to describe something that adds extra features to a browser, like flash or silverlight.

Previously I took it to mean "rich in interactivity". That's what I meant when I originally wrote that, a static site does not mean you can't have interactive content. IMHO the best way to write webapps is to have a static client that consumes an API provided by a standalone backend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com