No. Wordpress requires overly complex administration and deployment. There’s just a lot that goes on with Wordpress, and you’d need a VPS to deploy it just by the nature of Wordpress.
If you’re building a static site - meaning, a site which does not have any forms which require backend functions - you should use a static site generator. If you’re not building a static site, I recommend starting with a static site. It’s just a lot less to keep in your head as a beginner.
My recommendation is Astro. I like it because it makes it easy and straightforward to create a static site. And, you will also learn JavaScript along the way, without building out a node backend or even anything on the front end.
But, if you really want to learn, I recommend noting. Yes, nothing. Just HTML files in a folder, a css stylesheet, maybe some JS files, and a web server. For deployment, you don’t need a web server config or a VPS. Just use cloud flare pages, link it up with GitHub, and boom, you have a static site.
Don’t be intimidated. If you do just HTML, you can learn a lot and you get the nitty gritty. You understand how the site actually functions from start to end.
You probably need a template for the page format and style, which you customize and expand writing your HTML. Otherwise starting from scratch, the page will be ugly without a lot of coding.
I’d argue even in the former Wordpress is a poor choice.
Yes the ecosystem is big. But Wordpress is annoying and so unbelievably overkill for static sites. This is a cost and maintenance issue: you need a backend, you have to maintain it. Maintaining Wordpress is notoriously difficult and time consuming.
So sure, the “cost” of Wordpress appears low because of the ecosystem. But you’re trading upfront cost for recurring cost. That’s typically a bad trade, IMO.
Comments
No. Wordpress requires overly complex administration and deployment. There’s just a lot that goes on with Wordpress, and you’d need a VPS to deploy it just by the nature of Wordpress.
If you’re building a static site - meaning, a site which does not have any forms which require backend functions - you should use a static site generator. If you’re not building a static site, I recommend starting with a static site. It’s just a lot less to keep in your head as a beginner.
My recommendation is Astro. I like it because it makes it easy and straightforward to create a static site. And, you will also learn JavaScript along the way, without building out a node backend or even anything on the front end.
But, if you really want to learn, I recommend noting. Yes, nothing. Just HTML files in a folder, a css stylesheet, maybe some JS files, and a web server. For deployment, you don’t need a web server config or a VPS. Just use cloud flare pages, link it up with GitHub, and boom, you have a static site.
Don’t be intimidated. If you do just HTML, you can learn a lot and you get the nitty gritty. You understand how the site actually functions from start to end.
You probably need a template for the page format and style, which you customize and expand writing your HTML. Otherwise starting from scratch, the page will be ugly without a lot of coding.
What’s the best way to get the template?
Yea wordpress is overly complex for no reason at all. And suprisingly learning html is easier haha
Do you want to create websites or learn to create websites. If the former, WP is fine.
I’d argue even in the former Wordpress is a poor choice.
Yes the ecosystem is big. But Wordpress is annoying and so unbelievably overkill for static sites. This is a cost and maintenance issue: you need a backend, you have to maintain it. Maintaining Wordpress is notoriously difficult and time consuming.
So sure, the “cost” of Wordpress appears low because of the ecosystem. But you’re trading upfront cost for recurring cost. That’s typically a bad trade, IMO.