Déjà vu, Gatsby also was light, fast, simple until it became a massive tool hard to manage. Astro was simple but I see it following the same path, layers, layers..
I say this too and get lambasted but when the guys are coming out on stage with the Apple Keynote mics you know it’s the beginning of the end 😂 The config alone is enough to make your head spin. Brilliant devs but i couldn’t agree with you more. Iles, Lume, Hugo, 11ty - that’s simple to me-do this input thing get this output thing.
@@awesome-coding sure it is. Tech is evolving. I really appreciate state of JS lang in comparison to 15 years ago. Simple lib like HTMX + pure JS can do so much today.. Back to basics is kind of funny from perspective of someone who coded before SPAs.
I still remember Astro 1 or 2. This was already a neat little technology for making static site websites. Today the focus is more on SSE but Astro is still for me the best as SSE since its still got this island mentality.
After 10 years of madness, the javascript developer community come up with the same architecture the industry was already using: - No javascript in client side unless dynamic interaction required - Everything are generated on server side - Don't do runtime generation of things won't change frequently ...etc 😂😂😂
Websites 👉 yes WebApps 👉 no. Especially if it's an Enterprise applications or needs to function under spotty wifi signals Still, I love Astro for "website" development. So much easier to work with versus Next, Nuxt or even Sveltekit (which is pretty easy to use). However when I need to grab something for client side functionality in astro, I use svelte✌️
@@FernandoJimenez-cd1ui it's 100% not, i am currently using it and it has much magic and frameworky things in it, php without framework is not even remotely close
astro is the best thing to happen to the js ecosystem. it unifies all of the frameworks. it's honestly a joy to work with because of the flexibility of being able to use multiple frameworks at once.
What would you suggest as a CMS with drag n drop editor, I was thinking to create websites for clients on Astro but I am thinking on how to make for them easier so they could edit things by themselves.
@@endritibra4351 don't do it, it would be a worse quality site and also you'd get less money if they edit stuff themselves instead of going through you
Astro 5??? I thought 2 just got released lol. I learned web dev through Astro 1.0 coming from wordpress. So itll always have a special place in my heart :')
Being server side rendered doesn't make it faster... If anything, it makes it slower cos the backend has to handle all that javascript for potentially many requests per second. If it's a powerful backend, and the website doesn't have much traffic, only then will it be faster.
Did you ever tried Astro? SSR is not mandatory, it can be configured selectively. I never seen anything faster than Astro out of the box. Between all the BS that we saw in recent years, Astro is the only thing with some substance that I tried.
The default configuration is to produce a static site. This means everything is rendered at build time. For cases where you need dynamic content, you can also do a hybrid approach where only certain pages or components are SSR
But you can scale your server and not your client's browser. If You use heavy client side rendering then also it will also slow your site down and in low spec client, it won't even load your site whereas if you server rendered your site. It's accessible in any PC which can open a browser.
Astro runs on a JS runtime (Node / Deno) which technically will be slower than Go. So the advantage of Go is probably a more performant & efficient server implementation. Templates and HTMX works well but it is not considered the "standard dev experience". It is perfectly fine for most apps, but web developers these days tend to prefer having more control over the UI via components. On top of that, with Astro you have al the tools to build SSR and CSR apps, while Go + HTMX will always be SSR. So, in short: - Go + HTMX will be more performant and pragmatic; - Astro will have a better DX and more flexibility.
As much as I'm in favour of more server-rendered and static stuff for SEO, caching, load time, etc., I still want navigation to not do a full reload. Can Astro do that, or should I go with something like Next and use server components as much as possible? Or just bite the bullet and return to monkey web era?
Astro can't help you with that, since it still follows the multi page architecture at it's code. Next would probably be a better option if this is that important for you, but remember that with Next you are more or less tied in to Vercel. (Read this for more details opennext.js.org/)
Debatable. We moved away from SSR because CSR was offering better UX. SSR today is completely different compared to 10 years ago. It is now just a link in a more complex chain where Hydration and Streaming are doing a lot of the heavy lifting needed to offer a modern native app UX on the web.
@@awesome-coding personally I don't believe any of that hyperbole BUT it would make for an excellent video! It would be the first video explaining the difference between legacy SSR and new "better" SSR. Assuming it's backed with code and numbers. Fyi, I do enjoy your channel. Keep up the good work.
We moved away from SSR because hosting was expensive to scale and and bandwidth was slow. I don’t buy the “better UX” argument. We could do all that server-side, it just wasn’t palatable over a 128kb/s internet connection.
Astro is great for me because of the HTML module syntax, the frontmatter approach for Typescript/Javascript server side code, and the freedom to approach building a site/app how you want, but they're going to eventually ruin it for revenue because all these frameworks are venture capitalism based, and need millions of hypebeast developers so the owners can become multi-billionaires by switching to a SaaS. I appreciate Astro but I prefer libraries over frameworks, and learning the logic of how to implement the approaches.
If you want the whole app to run in the browser, you are in need of an SPA. You can achieve this with Astro by serving an empty HTML page on the client with an component. Deno is technically one layer down, since it is a JS runtime. Astro is a framework that needs to run on a runtime. So you can run Astro on Node, Deno or Bun. Indeed, Deno has a wide range of featurs and adjacent products. They have the Fresh framework which technically competes with Astro.
@@jaydeep-p Good luck finding EMPLOYERS that will hire you with only the necessary skills set (HTML, JS, PHP/Node). I've pushed JS to its limits, developed pretty substantial games and enterprise apps in Vanilla, only to be confronted with job listings that require several frameworks that do things equally good or even worse (overhead). Good idea to NOT focus on the end result and your employees competencies, but rather chase after every new shiny gimmick being released on a constant basis, way to go! 👍 Do not focus on the core functionality these days. Instead, become a "framework wizard", you'll be much better off. Just don't complain when your app breaks down at some point (maybe due to some external dependency) and you have no idea why 🤷
It's not a matter of migrating to a new framework, it's a matter of keeping track with the advancements in the space, and what the competition is doing.
I want to use it, but all my clients wants to use next.js for some ungodly reason.. Why do they even care about the technology stack?! If you're so knowledgeable about web technology, write it yourself (.. please don't 🫠)
Oh my god, we finally have a javacript framework to build websites? Never thought the day would come. Sorry, I'm sure this one is great or whatever but I can't sit here and watch this.
this Chanel objective it is flood stuff you dont'''t need and confuse you. watch it a grain of salt
I guess if news are confusing for you, you might be right.
@all Don't forget to subscribe for more fake news from the tech world!✌️
This channel objective is to get views and get money. By showing news. What about it?
I've switched to Astro and I don't know why I've been wasting my time all along. Astro is awesome,
what were you using previously??
@@meowmeshPHP, 😂
@@NickTheCodeMechanic i just applied for java+php role.. wish me luck 🥲
Déjà vu, Gatsby also was light, fast, simple until it became a massive tool hard to manage. Astro was simple but I see it following the same path, layers, layers..
You are actually making a good point.
I say this too and get lambasted but when the guys are coming out on stage with the Apple Keynote mics you know it’s the beginning of the end 😂
The config alone is enough to make your head spin. Brilliant devs but i couldn’t agree with you more.
Iles, Lume, Hugo, 11ty - that’s simple to me-do this input thing get this output thing.
That's we called evolution of the framework my friend😅
@@animemesclip Hahaha, indeed my friend
Congrats! You unlocked most common way of developing web 15 years ago 👏😂
The DX is better though
@@awesome-coding sure it is. Tech is evolving. I really appreciate state of JS lang in comparison to 15 years ago. Simple lib like HTMX + pure JS can do so much today.. Back to basics is kind of funny from perspective of someone who coded before SPAs.
@@szymmarcinkowski Hilarious.
I still remember Astro 1 or 2. This was already a neat little technology for making static site websites. Today the focus is more on SSE but Astro is still for me the best as SSE since its still got this island mentality.
After 10 years of madness, the javascript developer community come up with the same architecture the industry was already using:
- No javascript in client side unless dynamic interaction required
- Everything are generated on server side
- Don't do runtime generation of things won't change frequently
...etc
😂😂😂
so true
Facts! 😌
Websites 👉 yes
WebApps 👉 no. Especially if it's an Enterprise applications or needs to function under spotty wifi signals
Still, I love Astro for "website" development. So much easier to work with versus Next, Nuxt or even Sveltekit (which is pretty easy to use). However when I need to grab something for client side functionality in astro, I use svelte✌️
Astro is exactly like php without a framework
@@FernandoJimenez-cd1ui it's 100% not, i am currently using it and it has much magic and frameworky things in it, php without framework is not even remotely close
astro is the best thing to happen to the js ecosystem. it unifies all of the frameworks. it's honestly a joy to work with because of the flexibility of being able to use multiple frameworks at once.
Totally agree!
Alright I'll switch to Astro 5
*2 weeks later*
"Forget astro, Here is a brand new new framework changes the game"
😭
In all fairness, when you are using Astro you can use it in combination with a lot of UI libraries. :D
that will never happen
Astro is magnificent
It is 5 already i just recently install it and it's 4.16 The new content layer feature though is Awesome!
Astro has been my go to framework for a while and nothing came close to it in term of developer experience too.
i just started to build something in astro and it's quite nice, but i'm still wondering if it's better than sveltekit or just different but as good
It is slightly different compared to Svelte Kit, but I find Astro more flexible and feature rich.
@@awesome-coding kk thx for the reply, will stick to astro and try out sveltekit in some other project if i get the chance
What would you suggest as a CMS with drag n drop editor, I was thinking to create websites for clients on Astro but I am thinking on how to make for them easier so they could edit things by themselves.
@@endritibra4351 don't do it, it would be a worse quality site and also you'd get less money if they edit stuff themselves instead of going through you
Astro 5??? I thought 2 just got released lol. I learned web dev through Astro 1.0 coming from wordpress. So itll always have a special place in my heart :')
Better than Hugo or Statamic?
Being server side rendered doesn't make it faster... If anything, it makes it slower cos the backend has to handle all that javascript for potentially many requests per second.
If it's a powerful backend, and the website doesn't have much traffic, only then will it be faster.
Did you ever tried Astro? SSR is not mandatory, it can be configured selectively. I never seen anything faster than Astro out of the box. Between all the BS that we saw in recent years, Astro is the only thing with some substance that I tried.
The default configuration is to produce a static site. This means everything is rendered at build time. For cases where you need dynamic content, you can also do a hybrid approach where only certain pages or components are SSR
your comments are not related to @Wreighn point tho...
But you can scale your server and not your client's browser. If You use heavy client side rendering then also it will also slow your site down and in low spec client, it won't even load your site whereas if you server rendered your site. It's accessible in any PC which can open a browser.
SSR is not necessarily faster than CSR, if your server will be having a lot of request then SSR doesn't make sense.
True The servers are very cheap these days though.
what's the difference between using this thing and Golang, specifically using Golang with templates and HTMX?
Astro runs on a JS runtime (Node / Deno) which technically will be slower than Go.
So the advantage of Go is probably a more performant & efficient server implementation.
Templates and HTMX works well but it is not considered the "standard dev experience". It is perfectly fine for most apps, but web developers these days tend to prefer having more control over the UI via components. On top of that, with Astro you have al the tools to build SSR and CSR apps, while Go + HTMX will always be SSR.
So, in short:
- Go + HTMX will be more performant and pragmatic;
- Astro will have a better DX and more flexibility.
@@awesome-codingBetter DX is a strange argument given JS choatic nature compared to Golang
Astro allows for SSG, also Astro is totally compatible with htmx, unlike most other web frameworks
@@cryptonative DX is subjective for sure :D
This is yet another silly Js framework. All of these need to go away
As much as I'm in favour of more server-rendered and static stuff for SEO, caching, load time, etc., I still want navigation to not do a full reload. Can Astro do that, or should I go with something like Next and use server components as much as possible? Or just bite the bullet and return to monkey web era?
Astro can't help you with that, since it still follows the multi page architecture at it's code.
Next would probably be a better option if this is that important for you, but remember that with Next you are more or less tied in to Vercel. (Read this for more details opennext.js.org/)
@@awesome-coding Interesting. I was just looking to self-host with Node. Next's docs say that self-hosting still supports all features.
Just include Hotwire Turbo or something
I add react-router if I want to add a client-side routing. So it will be one application inside my astro
Have a look at Astros ViewTransitions, they will give your website that SPA feel while still keeping the benefits of SSR or static sites
Cool and fast, until the next version of Astro is built entirely in C-compiled WebAssembly 😂
😅
wonderful. back to php/jsp/asp/etc ssr. wasnt there a reason we dumped ssr? im sure there was. does anyone remember?...
Debatable.
We moved away from SSR because CSR was offering better UX. SSR today is completely different compared to 10 years ago. It is now just a link in a more complex chain where Hydration and Streaming are doing a lot of the heavy lifting needed to offer a modern native app UX on the web.
@@awesome-coding personally I don't believe any of that hyperbole BUT it would make for an excellent video! It would be the first video explaining the difference between legacy SSR and new "better" SSR. Assuming it's backed with code and numbers. Fyi, I do enjoy your channel. Keep up the good work.
We moved away from SSR because hosting was expensive to scale and and bandwidth was slow. I don’t buy the “better UX” argument. We could do all that server-side, it just wasn’t palatable over a 128kb/s internet connection.
So it's going the same path from a minimal easy to use tool, to the same one size fits all mess like next and gatsby. 😕
How to make gsap based website?
Astro is great for me because of the HTML module syntax, the frontmatter approach for Typescript/Javascript server side code, and the freedom to approach building a site/app how you want, but they're going to eventually ruin it for revenue because all these frameworks are venture capitalism based, and need millions of hypebeast developers so the owners can become multi-billionaires by switching to a SaaS. I appreciate Astro but I prefer libraries over frameworks, and learning the logic of how to implement the approaches.
i've never got npm check to work in astro lmao. npm build works fine tho.
okay, but i want the whole app to run on the client basically. with option to install, not view in browser. so i guess deno is a good option for me?
If you want the whole app to run in the browser, you are in need of an SPA. You can achieve this with Astro by serving an empty HTML page on the client with an component.
Deno is technically one layer down, since it is a JS runtime. Astro is a framework that needs to run on a runtime. So you can run Astro on Node, Deno or Bun.
Indeed, Deno has a wide range of featurs and adjacent products. They have the Fresh framework which technically competes with Astro.
@@awesome-coding ah thanks. i guess asto+deno would be a pretty good combo then?
@@marc_frank Yes - I think it is!
@@awesome-coding, would you say Fresh is in par with Astro v5? No, right?
Thanks.
@@awesome-coding thats ... awesome :)
Still no inline typescript?
3:33 "by default Astro renders static pages" -> wrong. Astro renders server rendered pages by default and you have to manually switch it to static.
Vanilla HTML And JS Has It All 😤
Good luck finding devs that are willing to work on that stack.
Astro is vanilla html and JS! Just better 😊
So true
That's why you're unemployed.
@@jaydeep-p Good luck finding EMPLOYERS that will hire you with only the necessary skills set (HTML, JS, PHP/Node).
I've pushed JS to its limits, developed pretty substantial games and enterprise apps in Vanilla, only to be confronted with job listings that require several frameworks that do things equally good or even worse (overhead).
Good idea to NOT focus on the end result and your employees competencies, but rather chase after every new shiny gimmick being released on a constant basis, way to go! 👍
Do not focus on the core functionality these days. Instead, become a "framework wizard", you'll be much better off. Just don't complain when your app breaks down at some point (maybe due to some external dependency) and you have no idea why 🤷
At this point. Im not migrating to a new framework....I'm sticking to Nextjs and React simple as that
It's not a matter of migrating to a new framework, it's a matter of keeping track with the advancements in the space, and what the competition is doing.
No matter what framework you use, this is, in most cases, the correct approach.
This sounds like PHP with extra stepa
:)) Anything sounds like PHP with extra steps.
Some steamy hot takes in these comments.
I know, right?
sounds like old ASPx. all that JS mess to round trip
Yep :D
Bro. Already on 5? XD
And for very dynamic sites?
You can still use a UI Library to render a whole page on the client.
It's unfortunate Astro doesn't want to go on the APP dev side and still stick with "content". That's where we need innovation and refine.
I really hope you are being sarcastic
@@leonvolq6179 euh no?
you can build web apps with astro, no problems at all, simply use the client routing and transition:persist directive to make it working like a SPA
Astro has no shared-state nested layouts dawg
u meen th-cam.com/video/KI090FwZZIw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6KFghA8aRQQRcoEQ ?
It offers nanostores. Share state between islands.
Just to produce html, css and some js
Well.. it's not doing just that but sure.
Astro 5 has it all !!!
... except devs wanting to use it.
I want to use it, but all my clients wants to use next.js for some ungodly reason.. Why do they even care about the technology stack?! If you're so knowledgeable about web technology, write it yourself (.. please don't 🫠)
Hey... I'm a dev using it!
Oh my god, we finally have a javacript framework to build websites? Never thought the day would come.
Sorry, I'm sure this one is great or whatever but I can't sit here and watch this.
Yet another React shit based framework. Just embrace SSR with Angular.
It has nothing to do with React though :/
@@awesome-coding I meant that the coding style and the general hierarchy is identically to react
@@thebrickslayer8768 no it's not :D
everything except production usage lmaooooo get serious
I'm using it in production 🤔
Another javascript framework?😂
Javascript madness continues.🙄Enough already.😤
What do you mean enough?! We are just starting..
Astro5 promises to be great. But Savvy folks know better. A gazillion js frameworks before it made the same false promise.