Just use HTML

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of “Just Use HTML”

  • Many agree simple, content-focused sites (blogs, docs, dashboards) are well-served by plain HTML (with minimal CSS/JS).
  • Several push back that the web is more than documents: apps like Figma, Tinkercad, or complex UI need serious JavaScript and often frameworks.
  • Some see “only HTML” as as dogmatic as “always use the latest framework”; context and requirements matter.

Tone, Satire, and Swearing

  • The aggressive “Hey, dipshit” / “just fucking use HTML” tone divides readers.
  • Some find it funny or nostalgically reminiscent of early-2000s web rant culture (Maddox, Zed Shaw, “motherfuckingwebsite” lineage).
  • Others find it off-putting, unprofessional, or simply tiring; a few say they bounced immediately or were motivated to use frameworks “out of spite.”
  • Debates over whether it’s satire or sincere illustrate Poe’s law; several note humor that needs explanation isn’t landing.
  • Thread briefly veers into accusations of AI-generated prose and complaints that online discourse now sounds “LLM-ish.”

Browser Behavior & Reader Modes

  • Firefox’s reader mode button doesn’t consistently appear for the page; Safari’s does.
  • Discussion notes Readability heuristics are intentionally opaque to thwart sites gaming them; “opt-in” for developers is intentionally not supported.
  • Some argue the reader button should always be available for user control; others say it can’t do anything useful without enough text.

Plain HTML in Practice (tirreno and Others)

  • One commenter showcases a real site built with HTML 4.01, tables, 1px gifs, and <font> tags—no CSS/JS—as “easy to update” and device-agnostic.
  • Others strongly dispute this: inline presentational markup is hard to maintain, breaks mobile usability, and ignores modern CSS.
  • There’s debate over whether poor mobile behavior is the site’s fault vs mobile browsers’ layout policies; multiple people insist it’s plainly broken on phones.
  • Some defend such retro styling as art/nostalgia; critics call it bad engineering and warn about confusing “fun experiments” with best practice.

HTML, CSS, and Modern Web UX

  • Several wish unstyled HTML “looked good by default” and criticize browser defaults; others argue CSS + basic design system is already powerful.
  • Suggestions include letting users theme bare-HTML pages in the browser and using minimal CSS frameworks (Pico, Water.css).
  • Some complain CSS feels archaic in modern TS projects and tooling is weak compared to JS/TS (e.g., poor autocompletion, hard to navigate styles).

History and Role of Frameworks

  • Veterans recall the web standards movement (CSS vs tables) and note frameworks historically pushed browsers/standards forward.
  • Others argue HTML/CSS primitives are “raw” or “bad,” explaining why frameworks like React emerged; counter-voices claim HTML/CSS are actually excellent, just burdened by legacy and weak deprecation signals.
  • One meta-point: a lot of current HTML features (inputs, semantics) exist because frameworks and polyfills showed the need.

HTML Features & Limits Highlighted by the Page

  • People discover or re-discover:
    • Advanced input types like type="week" and their inconsistent support (mobile vs desktop, ISO week semantics).
    • Elements like <details>, <dialog>, and browser-native form controls.
    • The legacy global variable mapping from id attributes, which many consider bad practice.
  • A few note form controls on the page misbehave in certain browsers (e.g., month picker in Firefox, alignment issues in Chrome).
  • Accessibility caveat: some patterns (e.g., ARIA-compliant combobox) still require JavaScript; frameworks can simplify getting these right.

AI, Abstractions, and “Overengineering”

  • The article’s AI rant sparks discussion:
    • Some think AI will reduce the need for high-level abstractions (e.g., ORMs), generating lower-level SQL or HTML directly.
    • Others argue good abstractions will remain valuable, especially to constrain AI output and reduce bugs.
    • Several warn that throwing away abstractions in favor of AI-generated one-off code could increase complexity and reduce maintainability.
  • Meta-discussion: AI as another abstraction layer vs “compiler from language to code,” and whether it will standardize or fragment software patterns.

Design, Ads, and Consistency

  • Reactions to the site’s appearance are mixed: some praise its speed, simplicity, and readability; others call it ugly, cramped, or “Geocities hostage,” weakening its argument that plain HTML can look good.
  • Complaints about missing margins, weak paragraphing, and lack of responsive layout are common.
  • Some note the irony of including Google Tag Manager/Analytics and a promotional link (Telebugs) on a supposedly minimalist anti-bloat page; author clarifies both sites are theirs, not third-party sponsored.

General Sentiment

  • Many like the reminder to avoid unnecessary stacks for simple projects.
  • Equally many reject the absolutist framing, see it as yet another “Monday JS framework shitpost,” or criticize a “regressionist mindset.”
  • Overall theme: embrace HTML more, but don’t pretend it eliminates the need for JS, CSS, accessibility work, or thoughtful engineering.