I guess you use what you are familiar with, but using react for doc site instead of using some off the shelf static site generator/cms with caching seems like wasted effort. More fun from dev point of view with react no doubt.
Great doc sites are dynamic in heaps of little ways. Stripe started the trend of showing you code snippets with api keys from your account to test with.
Frontend docs sites almost always include runnable examples, that you can play with inside the docs.
It's easier to integrate JS when the entire toolchain is all in JS. That's my main reason for using React Server Components over other static site generators. Also I like types via TypeScript.
You can use a static site generator like Gatsby or a variant of Nextjs (or even docosaurus), get MD(X) support and full features of react components when needed
I hear this all the time and I don't understand it. Bootstrapping a new project with <insert modern framework here> is so easy and fast, literally easier than bootstrapping a vanilla HTML project. What am I missing?
Edit: downvoters, I'm genuinely curious to hear your perspective.
It is statically generated. The reason to use React is so you have one language across the front-end rather than having some people using React on one site, and then people using Gatsby/Hugo for something else. Next.JS can do the same thing as Gatsby/Hugo but has more features and is in React.
But you don't even need to know what language your tool is written in if all you want is a static documentation site.
This is a problem a lot of people have; they think in technology instead of actual problem solving. Just look at how many projects have been posted on here with a title like "$solved_problem... in Rust!" as if Rust makes everything better forever.
It's marketing bullshit. It's self-gratification. It's using a technology for technology's sake, not for solving a problem. And it's costing the industry billions in sunk cost, dead ends, overcomplicated and unmaintainable software. Because one guy felt strongly about a language or technology.
> But you don't even need to know what language your tool is written in if all you want is a static documentation site.
Not if you want interactivity in certain parts of the doc site, such as what Stripe does with API keys. It's simply easier to add JS if the entire toolchain is JS.
Then what is an actually good example in your analogy? I don't see how using a static site generator is anything like smashing your fingers, seems like a common enough solution to me.
