re: Best way to partition repetitive static html? VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

If you don't plan on making the content dynamic, you should look into a html compiler, such as Pug. You can use includes and build your HTML once locally.

pugjs.org/language/includes.html

head.pug

meta(charset="utf-8")
meta(http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge")
meta(name="description" content="This meta tag will be on all pages")
meta(name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1")
meta(name="title" content="Hello world")
title Hello world
link(inline rel="stylesheet" href="src/style/style.css")

(every other file)

doctype html
html(lang="en")
    head
         include head.pug
 

But wouldn't this require a rewrite of all my code to be in the pug syntax?
I worry that this could become less popular in the future and I would eventually have to port it again. Is this different from creating a react component in terms of how opinionated the syntax is?

 

React is a javascript framework, and you (might) have to convert your current code to JSX or an alternative. It tells the end-user what the DOM tree is supposed to look like and then the user parses it.

Pug is a template engine, so you would write your code on your machine and it would print out html files that you distribute.

You're right that this could be less popular in the future, but I would also argue that since it's a development tool that you would use and not something that is dependent on the client this is less of an issue.

Handlebars.js and Pug are both template engines and you should not require the user to compile or parse your templates, this will increase runtime. (handlebarsjs.com/precompilation.html)

In the end, these are all tools, and you could use either or use React, it's all about choice. You might start a simple little ToDo app or a codepen.io to test out these things before committing to one.

code of conduct - report abuse