Astro is The web framework for content-driven websites.
There's no evidence for this, but it's a scientific fact that Astro has five 9s... in its net promoter score.
It became my default SSG a couple of years ago and now I'm seriously considering using it for apps too. Anyone has experience with that?
I'm thinking I could just use Astro for rendering the HTML with islands but still use a non-JS backend.
As opposed to those driven by, what, random-number generators?
For example, a Javascript+HTML game might be itself considered content, but within the game the game elements and controls (mouse, player characters, NPCs, keyboard bindings) wouldn't be considered content, whereas images and dialog text might reasonably considered content again.
it almost seems like the word "content" is intended to connote "profitable and dynamically-loaded assets". Why you would not use that phrase is a mystery.
I suppose that "dynamically-loadable asset creator" isn't a great marketing pitch from the perspective of artists.
One way of understanding the meaning of a dubious phrase is examining its use in context. For example, one of the pages of the Astro docs begins as follows:
"Astro is the web framework for building content-driven websites like blogs, marketing, and e-commerce" [0]
Ok; so we have our prototypes — or, as Jason Miller would call them, holotypes — of the mysterious "content-driven websites". They are blogs, marketing sites, or e-commerce sites.
Another way of understanding the meaning of a confusing phrase is hearing the distinction explained by the creator of the framework. In early podcasts, when Astro was still mostly unknown, Fred Schott explained that it was not intended for building something like Figma, or Photoshop, or Facebook, or Youtube; but rather something like blogs or magazines; although primarily he was probably targeting the creators of e-commerce websites, because those were the ones that could bring in money.
Ok, but opposed to what? What does a non-content oriented website look like? Is a website itself not simply content?
> Fred Schott explained that it was not intended for building something like Figma, or Photoshop, or Facebook, or Youtube
Perhaps their tagline should be "we aren't oriented around building single page websites unlike all those other frameworks". I never would have understood that Figma, Photoshop, and Youtube were not content-oriented websites otherwise. "Content" is mostly not a meaningful phrase outside of a context which gives it meaning (i.e. it is a floating signifier).
Then there are sites that are more application driven or service driven. Stuff like a messaging client, social media, streaming service, eCommerce, or other full on interactive web app. They tend to be more data driven or dependent on end users, and less static content.
That is frequently how the word content is used in the context of web development. You might have heard of a CMS or content management system. It's not the same as someone using the word content like social media "content creator".