Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Steve
@stevedylandev.eth
Something I would add to the Next conversation: it’s ok to use Next. Personally Next has allowed me to ship ideas fast. Over the last year I’ve shipped around fully 10+ fully functional marketing apps for Pinata on Next, including @candyroad, @photocast, and Snippets.so. That doesn’t include the frames, which would be in the dozens. These are apps that if we had to scale them into full products, it wouldn’t be that hard to move to a more robust full stack. The key is I didn’t over analyze and build with the goal of supporting 10k users. I built with the purpose testing an idea and providing an example. Depending on your position you may value optimizing for growth more, but I think generally it’s agreed to ship fast first. There’s no point in wasting time on an idea that might suck. If you genuinely don’t like DX that’s fine too. Build with the framework that makes you excited to code. Whatever the case may be, just ship it.
3 replies
3 recasts
27 reactions
July
@july
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Nicholas Charriere
@pushix
imo this is next's sweet spot: no users and only learn one version and stick with it. Anything at scale sucks, and anything complex sucks (no middleware, server components is a shit show, router is weak, ...) I've learned recently that nextJS killer feature is that it's really "small" for covering backend + frontend + deployment. So for "small" ideas, it shines
0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Harry
@htormey
For me, it’s not just about cost. NextJS feels increasingly janky—backwards compatibility is slipping, and the complexity/utility of features doesn’t add up. I’m also concerned about its long-term viability. Learning NextJS doesn’t feel like the same solid investment as React or Postgres.
1 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
