In the late 90's there were free WYSIWYG apps that generated reliable HTML/CSS. I did a deep search recently into finding the Microsoft FrontPage equivalent of today, and the only one I could find that worked reliably was Adobe Dreamweaver, and it's not free.
(Kompozer, Brackets, SeaMonkey, BlueGriffon, etc. did not work reliably for me. I found that TinyMCE etc. are WYSIWYG for text, but not for positioning [i.e. they are "rich text editors"])
Why did such free WYSIWYG apps to generate HTML/CSS die out? Anyone have theories?
Seems extremely.... wasteful?
Why use something that can take next to no CPU and instead use massive energy sucking LLM?
Yeah, looking at that blog source, I can definitely tell it's been generated by an LLM.
``` <!-- Footer -->
<footer class="py-3" style="margin-top:5rem;">I've been doing this for a few years now. It usually works but occasionally rewrite the posts or forgets what it is doing. Really frustrating in my opinion
Why stop at static sites?
ChatGPT could develop your dynamic website too, per request.
Just use Bear Blog https://bearblog.dev/
needed a quick internal tool page, typed the prompt into it during a meeting. by the time call ended, had a working layout with header, form, and footer. didn’t ship it as-is, but 80% was usable without edits. quietly started using it as my default scratchpad
Missing "[joke]" tag.
So…ChatGPT can recreate ye olde Dreamweaver templates but with exponentially more resources consumed, and this is a good thing?
I don’t think we need to foist such basic tasks into a prediction machine, so much as we just need to go back to making competent software for end users again.
Like sure, it’s a neat concept, but man I just do not see the value of this as opposed to prior, lighter, and easier methods of static site generation. If anything, I see an author lamenting the lack of consumer options for site building that don’t involve extortionate subscriptions to overly powerful tools, and trying to reframe ChatGPT as some form of godsend of simplicity when it…kinda isn’t.