[HN Gopher] Reweb: Visual website builder for Next.js and Tailwind
___________________________________________________________________
Reweb: Visual website builder for Next.js and Tailwind
Author : klaussilveira
Score : 101 points
Date : 2024-11-25 01:46 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reweb.so)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reweb.so)
| gnabgib wrote:
| Page title: _The visual website builder for Next.js & Tailwind_
| tipiirai wrote:
| That site crashed my browser
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| It froze mine for a while. Pretty bad.
| gryzzly wrote:
| typical nextjs/react bloat, imagine you were using entry-level
| android like half the world population.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| Can you reimport from VS Code back into Reweb?
|
| Or make this a Code extension?
| slaucon wrote:
| Agreed this would be way more useful as an IDE extension.
| joshdavham wrote:
| Looks pretty impressive! Kinda makes me jealous as a Sveltekit
| dev.
| h4ch1 wrote:
| can just copy the generated raw markup and use shadcn-svelte
| SirHound wrote:
| UI looks ripped from Framer
| kylecordes wrote:
| It looks that way from some cosmetic choices, but structurally
| this kind of UI has been around a long time in many apps.
| Probably no one can claim to own it at this point.
| caust1c wrote:
| I hope this is the next standard for CMS-style sites. I'm eagerly
| waiting for the thing that's easy enough for non-coders to use
| that doesn't make the code-capable maintainers want to cry mercy.
|
| I was pretty optimistic about netlify-cms the approach they took
| just missed the mark on some technical things that NextJS handles
| as part of the framework.
|
| Best of luck! IMO there's still lots of opportunity in visual
| site builders, and this one looks like it has a lot of potential.
| kitd wrote:
| _> I 'm eagerly waiting for the thing that's easy enough for
| non-coders to use that doesn't make the code-capable
| maintainers want to cry mercy._
|
| As a former VBasic dev, don't hold your breath!
| mst wrote:
| Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
|
| I have seen far too much VB and VBA that was written by
| people who were only *ish* code-capable.
|
| BUT.
|
| The thing is, the result did basically work, was extremely
| useful to the people who were using it, and if the 'ish'
| person hadn't written it wouldn't've existed at all.
|
| So I'm genuinely glad that they did write it, and they were
| pretty much invariably somebody who was self taught, doing
| their best, in isolation, with nobody around them who even
| rose to the level of 'ish' to bounce ideas off or give
| feedback.
|
| It's actually quite a fascinating challenge to refactor code
| like that such that it becomes more structurally coherent
| *and* is still understandable and modifyable by the original
| author (ideally easier to modify, but I will settle for not
| making their lives harder while also making it easier for
| somebody like me to debug weird shit problems for them when
| they ask me to pitch in).
|
| So my 'aaaaaaa' here is in a spirit of 'where did I put the
| tissue box, my eyes are bleeding again' but not at all in a
| spirit of criticising the original author. They made it work
| at all!
|
| But any thought on trying to make it possible for people who
| don't code at all to produce non 'aaaaaaaa' inducing results
| needs to account for the part where we can't even manage that
| for the 'ish' people, and thus I am very suspicious of the
| odds of it ever working out.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Begind a paywall.
| smusamashah wrote:
| Is there a website builder that emits just vanilla JS and html
| instead?
| XzAeRosho wrote:
| yup: https://grapesjs.com/
|
| Self-hostable too.
| quaintdev wrote:
| Thanks for sharing! This looks good.
| paradite wrote:
| FrontPage and Dreamweaver are like 20 years old now.
| gadders wrote:
| I think Pinegrow will do this? https://pinegrow.com/
| vekker wrote:
| I'd happily pay a fixed fee for a self-hostable desktop app
| version of this, that just uses Ollama/ChatGPT/Claude for the LLM
| part. Ideally open source too.
|
| But yet another subscription? ... no thanks
| newusertoday wrote:
| other commenter @XzAeRosho shared it https://grapesjs.com/
| gadders wrote:
| Pinegrow: https://pinegrow.com/
| october8140 wrote:
| This seems like it would be slower than just using Next.js and
| Tailwind. What is it adding?
| desireco42 wrote:
| I like it. Also pricing is sensible. Yearly $100 is OK for this
| tool, monthly, I honestly will not even consider, as you can see
| people are fed up with monthly subs.
|
| I also like what I see in roadmap, you should have components,
| sync to github etc. So it looks like promising product to me.
| codegeek wrote:
| Visual part is nice and Landing page and slick. However, I am not
| trolling but what happens when NextJS is no longer the hot
| commodity that it is today. I would prefer a Visual CMS that lets
| me do all this but the output should always be static
| HTML/CSS/JS. Most tools either do the visual part well but fail
| at the output or vice versa. I don't mind if the stack is NextJS
| or whatever but the final output should be a static HTML. Bonus
| if you can push to deploy to Netlify/Cloudflare Pages/S3 etc
| dncornholio wrote:
| The exported code will always work, it doesn't depend on any
| popularity?
| paradite wrote:
| I think you are looking for FrontPage or Dreamweaver?
| Centigonal wrote:
| always pushing to static HTML limits you to minimal backend
| interactivity
| bilekas wrote:
| I'm not sure this is exactly true these days with htmx I've
| been having a rush of fun again with light weight front ends.
| And full two way binding support.
| __oh_es wrote:
| https://pinegrow.com may serve your needs well here epic
| product
| darepublic wrote:
| I see more of a reason for nextjs than tailwind personally.
| Having perhaps different export formats would be good but I do
| feel like nextjs is a decent standard, for now at least.
| kylecordes wrote:
| I am curious how this compares to developing a site using the
| various AI/IDE add-ons. If you're already a developer enough to
| care that it's using Next.js, it seems like bringing up in Cursor
| might be similarly effective, though less visual.
|
| Still, I'm happy to see developers pursuing tools like this.
| anentropic wrote:
| The intro graphic shows someone building a website with the
| title: "Leveraging AI to solve the world's biggest problems"
|
| At first glance this gives the impression that Reweb is some sort
| of LLM-aided "describe what you want it to build" tool
|
| But (unless I misunderstood) it's mostly a WYSIWYG tool, albeit
| there does seem to be an "AI theme generation" component
| Leimi wrote:
| Great to see such a tool not tied to a hosting formula, page
| views and everything.
|
| I see the value in helping me (the dev) quickly setting up
| landing pages and including them in my existing website that I
| host where I want.
| suyash wrote:
| Ah so it's a Next.js tool, because of that reason I'm out!
| funkaster wrote:
| as others have mentioned, this would be great if it would spit
| html fragments instead of react components. It would be really
| useful for quickly building htmx apps.
| deburo wrote:
| They offer a lifetime pricing tier, which will obviously removed
| in a few years if the company still exists. I wonder why a SaaS
| would even bother.
| hm-nah wrote:
| For me, visiting this site crashes Firefox on iOS.
| LauraMedia wrote:
| I generally like these tools, but I hate how they focus so much
| on one specific framework.
|
| Tailwind is so general, why wouldn't you build a tool that works
| with Vue, that works with React, that works with Svelte?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-25 23:01 UTC)