Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submitlogin
Next.js 8 released (nextjs.org)
241 points by keybits 11 months ago | hide | past | web | 111 comments | favorite

Next.js is an awesome framework, but dynamic routing is still a mess, and clean URL masking [0] is unnecessary complicated: you have to add a route handler to Express.js, and you have to use 2 different props to your <Link> components to make it work.

The Next team explains it because they don't want to solve this problem by shipping a definition of all the route of the app [1] because it does not scale. But while it is true, it makes dynamic routes extremely painful to use. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Another thing not mentioned in the blog post is they started to rewrite the core of Next.js in TypeScript too, which is a big move!

  [0] https://nextjs.org/learn/basics/clean-urls-with-route-masking
  [1] https://github.com/zeit/next.js/issues/4989#issuecomment-442024894

We had the same problem, and weren't happy with next-routes as a solution. Ultimately we ended up making our own library to handle routing. It's pretty low-level (some stuff is left for implementation in user-land), but so far it's been solid:


There is a bug right now related to query strings being hidden from the visible URL (they're still there as far as Next is concerned), but we'll be fixing that pretty soon.

Hey there!

Not sure if you've seen this guide here, but there is a way to setup dynamic routing with clean URLs that doesn't require adding your own server handler if you use Now v2 for deployments:


Also, I recently wrote about how I locally develop Now v2 apps with an example of SSR dynamic routes:


Is this Now only as I'm sure most of us don't use Now?

Yeah Now only

Thanks but no thanks!

This. I started out with a similar framework called nuxt.js but found the routing to be too limiting. It's a nice way to get started quickly, but once things become more complex you hit too many hurdles. In the end it pays to do the project setup yourself, which also helps a ton in debugging issues along the way.

Can you share what you found limiting with nuxtjs routing? Genuinely curious.

As you probably know, Nuxt.js uses a folder to url mapping, so say /src/views/contact/index.vue maps to /contact In my case I wanted to be able to change the url depending on the language of the user. And not by prefixing it with a /en/contact vs /de/kontact. To make matters more complicated, I serve multiple domains from the same node/express instance and determine the correct site data to render based on the domainname. There were plugins and hacks to make this somewhat possible, but it felt like going against the philosophy of nuxt.js. I still think it's a fantastic framework if your needs align with this type of routing. I ended up using the Vue SSR HackerNews repo as a template.

You can use custom routing and its actually recommended for bigger projects you can check it here if you want https://vuejsdevelopers.com/2018/07/16/7-tips-large-nuxt-app...

Thanks for the link. Good to see this is much easier now.

We are using `next-routes` and they are working really well for us.

next-routes is good, but it was unmaintained for a long time, with issues and PRs (27 at the time of writing!) piling up. A new maintainer was just added [1] who seems more active, so hopefully things will improve.

[1] https://github.com/fridays/next-routes/issues/244#issuecomme...

Almost all of them are just version bumps. We wasn't needed anything for a year of usage.

Second this. In production for nearly a near now.

> they started to rewrite the core of Next.js

This is such an important piece of information. Imagine you opt for Next and have to rewrite your app soon. I know, APIs can be backwards compatible and Next's next version will be backwards compatible but there is always something which doesn't work, sending you down the rabbit hole...

The core stays the same, they are only adding static types. I am certain they will make sure nothing meaningful will change in the outputted JavaScript, except for potential bug fixes uncovered by the types!

Your apps should not be affected at all.

> they are only adding static types.

The parent says something different and if it were just about adding types then you need just to add a file to DefinitelyTyped which I guess happened already.

Yes it says they are "rewriting the core in TypeScript", but that does not necessarily mean changing the code in any meaningful way. It means adding static types to the core itself, not only the interface (which DefinitivelyTyped is for).

Max is definitely right here. We're not planning to deprecate or "completely rewrite" anything.

We're not even "rewriting everything in Typescript at once". We're slowly converting files over one by one. No public APIs are changed. Furthermore, we have an extensive test suite of end-to-end tests for both development and production behavior.

What I don't get: Either you go full SPA or SSR. And If you go for latter then you can choose any stack, e.g. Rails, express with pug, Django, PHP, etc. Why do people take React's constraints to the backend? No bashing, really wondering what's so much better then. I know why a React SPA can be better than a SSR. But what is better about a React SSR vs the typical SSR?

Simple, SEO. We want full SPA, but also want SEO to work without shaky unreliable prerendering. Hence server-side-rendering for SPAs.

Some will tell you that it's for first time loading performance, but in this day and age, I doubt that even registers for business impact.

Still don't get it. Next.js gives you a vendor lock-in and its features are easily avail w/o Next (eg. automatic code-splitting, this is standard stuff in CRA, why the fuss?). If your business is about SEO then React is the wrong choice anyway. In my understanding SEO is about hundred-thousands or even millions landing pages, keyword management, content spinning, ultra fast loads, AMP, etc. This is really not the field of React or SPAs and you can tweak them as much as you want. React is great to build eg stateful SaaS, interactive stuff, dashboard, nice shop check-outs.

That they rewrite Next doesn't sound more convincing. And why do I need to sign-in on the learn page on Nextjs?

Sorry, not convinced. If you want some brute-force SEO, I'll write you anything in express/pug/style in one afternoon (with millions of landing pages, sitemap generation and smart routing, all comes out of the box with express), without all the baggage React brings along. Nothing against React, it's still one of the best SPA libs there but SSR, no way.

Maybe, I am still missing something but Next.js feels just like content marketing from its company Zeit trying to promote their commercial stuff.

Edit: guys, pls don't downvote if you disagree, downvoting is if comments don't add anything substantial to the discussion. I understand that Zeit is happy about the free promotion for Next on HN and doesn't like such comments but pls stay professional if people question your product without downvoting.

I’m very involved in this space. The company I work for wrote a library similar to Next.js before it was announced and before create-react-app. There are so many things that these solutions solve to only focus on SSR is missing the point. SSR is one benefit of many and others have already explained why they care about that. There are many use cases where both SEO and complex interactions make sense on the same page. Next.js is also going to help you with overall architecture decisions like routing, page level code splitting, where you fetch data just off the top of my head. Sure you can build these yourself, that’s what I did before Next.js was a thing but now that I have a deep understanding of all of the things we wrote. I would use an existing community backed solution before building from scratch in a new app. We are even very interested in migrating from our home rolled solution. Currently we are vendor locked into our own creation which means we have to continue to maintain it. It is way more expensive than any lock in that would have come with Next.js.

+1, even though I don't use the next.js tools, sometimes having certain things configured in the box is useful. I tend to stick with jest for testing simply because code coverage tooling can be a pain to get working right with babel, etc and it's just easier to use jest.

As to why SSR React, it's mostly going to come down to SEO, I don't know how much you'll get negatively impacted for being SSR vs SPA these days with proper routing myself. Google has been working on supporting client rendered scraping for at least 6-7 years now. And when a user hits more than one route, they've usually gained back anything they've lost for the extra load time.

> Next.js is also going to help you with [...] routing

I respect your experience and knowledge but people in this thread say exactly the opposite: Next.js' routing is actually not helping you.

Fair enough. It helps you but it could be better. Depends if you need dynamic routing or not. Personally I don’t find their solution for dynamic routing terrible but it could be better.

I don't buy the vendor lock-in argument here. The vast majority of your code will have nothing Next-related in it, this is a sharp contrast to a lot of the other options out there. Your page entry points will have getInitialProps, but that's actually a pretty decent pattern I'd probably choose to keep even if I moved away from Next.

The reason we actually went with Next is because it's relatively easy to drop if our needs diverge.

Of course there is a lock-in. Every lib you use locks you in. You don't know how many libs don't play well together. The more code and libs you add to your app the more complexity.

It's not hard to write code, it's hard to keep code complexity low and maintainable and IDK if Next.js helps here.

Yes, all libs give you vendor lock-in, which means unless Next is a particularly egregious example, there's not much point calling it out as a particular wart. My argument is that it's closer to the opposite, because as far as web frameworks go, Next does this better than most -- very little of the code you write is different just because you're using Next, your code is just normal React code. This is a huge contrast to something like Gatsby, where the lock-in is much stronger.

SEO isn't just about landing pages or corporate websites. Every public facing route is part of SEO.

Some of the most SEO heavy websites are social networks, ecommerce sites, marketplaces and other interactive websites.

Even for corporate websites though, why should we degrade the user experience for SEO if we can easily have both?

And yes whether you agree or not (and by your comment I think you don't) the vast majority of users and UI/UX designers consider SPA to be a much better user experience than loading pages.

If you are making websites for a living, I suggest you come aboard the SPA train quickly or risk losing north of 90% of job opportunities.

> Next.js gives you a vendor lock-in and its features are easily avail w/o Next

Think Next.js not like a framework but an SSR version of create-react-app. It's incredibly easy to port into your custom thing.

If you're already on create-react-app or any other framework or stack and don't want to port to a new framework, but want to add easy "just works" SSR, you can use react-frontload.


It's a small library that lets you load data into Components - using the same code on both client and server render. You can use it to add server rendering to any existing React app. It's designed to just plug in and work. I'm the author :-)

Pls check my other comment, anything you add to your code adds complexity and a natural lock-in. Maintainable code is not about adding every lib which crosses your way.

I see Next.js more as a build system than a framework / library. Of course it adds complexity, but in a comment above you say that "CRA does that too". You're not introducing any more or less complexity than CRA.

And what I'm saying is that Next.js does add the same complexity that you would add yourself but with great documentation. Also I have to say that's a very generic argument for any library.

CRA is a SPA. Next.js is not. When you hit a page in Next.js, it can prefetch and hydrate the data before it sends it down to the client. CRA cannot do this. First the client has to load the app, then the app has to fetch data from the server.

Next.js gives you prefetching as well as code splitting as well as server rendering.

You get to use all the modern tools that React gives you, an abundance of open source React components, and get an SEO and load time optimized website with minimal configuration. Building a server rendered, dynamic web app is non trivial. Next.js makes it a lot easier.

React coupled with Node.js has been used for SSR since 2015 in sites like PayPal so I'm not sure why you doubt it's veracity. React is a very strong UI library that is more than suitable for multiple rendering targets. It has never been limited to SPA apps. Facebook itself is not a pure SPA app.

> prefetching

Prefetching is a questionable and a lot discussed feature, do you want to prefetch all the 50 links on my page? Even if you think this a great feature, I am sure the user using your page doesn't like that you abuse his/her bandwidth. Especially those on mobile.

> code splitting

This is not a feature. Automatic code splitting is turn-key-ready in CRA. I wrote this now for the tenth time...

> server rendering

I explained this, if you really need SSR, a plain express/pug blows Next out of the water. Speed, flexibility, routing, everything. There is no single reason to use anything like Next.js. And writing a plain express/pug app is trivial and much easier than React, this is 10 years old tech.

I don't want to sound negative but again why is React as SSR 10x better than typical SSRs? It's not, React is great for real SPAs and Next feels to me like, let's jump on the React hype train and generate organic leads for Zeit.

You're just being nitty and not adding any value to the conversation.

Code-splitting in Next.js is fundamentally different than in CRA: https://nextjs.org/#automatic-code-splitting https://facebook.github.io/create-react-app/docs/code-splitt...

It's automatic, handled server side...and it gets hydrated on the server side if necessary with asynchronous data. The benefits of this on browser performance and developer performance should be self-evident.

Doing a truly isomorphic React app on your own with pure Node.js is non-trivial. As for using pug templates...just...no. You might want to read about why JSX is a thing to begin with.

It's not a hype thing. It's a tool that solves a problem. It's not needed for all applications. For many apps, a SPA is fine. That an engineer has to make evaluations on the trade-offs of various decisions goes without saying...But Next.js is a solid choice for a SSR framework.

> Prefetching is a questionable and a lot discussed feature, do you want to prefetch all the 50 links on my page?

This isn't how Next prefetches with dynamic routing. It fetches the JS required to construct the DOM of those pages, but doesn't execute it. If on one page you have three links to /gallery/a, /gallery/b, and /gallery/c, then gallery.js will be prefetched once. You can confirm this in devtools. Also, prefetching is opt-in.

Forget about nextjs and SPAs for a moment, think of react as a better alternative to pug, instead of express/pug you can use express/react, better because is component based and you write all your logic in JS instead of some new limited mini language.

I will sacrifice more my HN points since I will add nothing but to say that regardless of rationality you put, if being negative to React/javascript, it's guarantee to get downvote to hell.

I don't think it's any better or worse, it's just an additional way of writing SSR sites where React is a templating language.

React is just another option for a stack - similar to express with pug, you can have express with React, without having to learn a new templating language if you already know React. And with things like TypeScript, you can have type checking into the mix too

I selected React & Next.JS for our templating framework to use with an API driven website. There are hardly any SPA features incorporated into the website, though we set that as a possible down the road feature.

For me, the biggest reason to use React & Next.JS over any other template language was how enjoyable the JavaScript ecosystem is to work with once setup. React just happens to be the modern day JQuery & is leading the pack. I also prefer its XML/JSX type syntax.

The ability for us to write code that would work on the SSR portion & front end was also a big plus.

Also Storybook isn't a React only thing, but it is a JS thing. Allowing our designers to create components with mock API calls & having Webpack update the component (without reloading) on save is an amazing time saver & productivity gain. I know of no other language that has a component template system that is close to JavaScript, Storybook & Webpack. As WASM matures, I hope to see other languages match it.

Because they already know React, and they don't know Rails, Pug, Django, Laravel, et al. And using the skills they already have is easier than learning new ones. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It's the same reason why Electron is so popular for desktop apps. On just about every measure, there's a better alternative available for that sort of thing -- native apps if you want speed and great integration with the host environment, Qt if you're willing to sacrifice on those fronts to get a single cross-platform solution. But Electron has one thing those alternatives don't, namely that if you're a Web developer you don't have to learn any new languages, toolkits, etc. to be productive with it. And it turns out that, for an awful lot of developers, "I don't have to learn anything new" beats just about every other consideration.

React's constraints aren't particularly bad... the context bases for controls in a single file, better with React-JSS imho make it much easier to write against. SSR with React is sometimes a PITA, but that's rarely required imho.

I'm okay with SSR, but often you get to a point where you want to mix in dynamic functionality on the client that just becomes more difficult with it. I think that Vue, React and others can be integrated into SSR, but doing SSR of React makes for a nice application development as a whole imho.

In the end, it's up to the developer. I will say with JS client and direct server there's less disconnect for most development, and the lack/reduction of context switching can be a huge productivity boost. I'm usually a proponent of a JS client talking to/through a JS API, that can talk to other things. SSR with that server platform just makes it a bit more coupled, which isn't in itself a bad thing.


With frameworks like Next.js, it's no longer either/or, the explicit goal is to have the best of both worlds. The first page is delivered with SSR (for speed), then it boots React in the browser and works as an SPA.

I still think that you should endeavor to server-render anything you can get away with. Because of that, we have invested heavily in React SSR.

The biggest value-add of using React on the server is being able to share our design library and business logic with our front- and back-end. We can develop the structure, style and behavior of our website as React components and deploy them server side or client-side. In general, our team has found that the component model is far more composable than templates like pug, PHP, etc.

> And If you go for latter then you can choose any stack, e.g. Rails

You suggested Rails, but a big reason people like Next is exactly because it's an opinionated, batteries-included framework like Rails.

The "vendor lock-in" situation, which seems to be one of your main arguments, is exactly the same time. If you don't like vendor lock-in, I don't know why you'd propose Rails.

Next.js is a SPA with that loads a little faster and is more SEO-friendly.

> Next.js [...] loads a little faster

IDK, my dockerized express site loads much faster. At 20ms without network time (and this w/o caching). My real React SPA give you instant (0ms) page loads.

Nextjs.org initial load is at 580ms and the doc came at whopping 1.38sec (oh yeah) and page loads are not instantly... this thing doesn't make sense (for my use cases). If the only thing I know is React and JSX, then maybe but routing with express is much easier.

=> you want make serious money with SEO => get some real SSR environment

=> you want a great SPA, buttersmooth, interactive, maintainable code => React or other popular SPA libs

How can that be possible? The DNS lookup takes longer than that and you still haven't even gotten to your site. Once there the first byte time from the initial HTTP round strip still take considerably more. This is all network traffic that does matter what the application is doing.

> How can that be possible? The DNS lookup takes longer than that and you still haven't even gotten to your site.

I wrote without networking time which includes DNS lookup

How long is the first page load of your react SPA?

This is the wrong question. I use React for SPA use cases and then initial loading time is secondary but I tell you something, my stock React SPA with tons of js and assets has following loading times:

  DOMContentLoad: 1.08sec, Load: 2.26sec
and let's look at nextjs.org:

  DOMContentLoad: 1.09sec, Load: 2.31sec
I mean this comparison doesn't make sense because you don't know my SPA and I could write anything here but test it yourself. I just don't see a clear use case for Next.js. Just make an example, you sell some SaaS. Make the web product as React SPA but the marketing landing pages as normal express/pug site. Both the web product and the landing pages have different use cases: one needs to create leads and the other one has to increase customer satisfaction. These are different goals, so maybe you should also use different tools.

My own react app, not using next with a rather heavy payload (async splitting in webpack broke in the past 3 months and haven't been able to get it working again) is under a load of 1.24s Finished time, locally (static content server, with 2 db queries via api).

Unless you MUST have the absolute best SEO, I'm not sure that it really matters having SSR for most people/apps. I don't know how much traffic is really driven from search engines depending on the site, and I really don't know how much you get penalized for having an SPA anymore. I mean if your initial load is under 2-3s and in-site navigation is fast, you'll probably be fine.

The past few sites/apps I've consulted on got the majority of their traffic from outside SEO.

DOMContentLoaded isn't as relevant with SSR, because the markup and styles come rendered on the first response, so you never see an initial blank white page.

More relevant metrics are TTFB (time to first byte) and TTI (time to interactive).

I wouldn't want to implement a marketing site in express/pug. I want the flexibility of components and all the other benefits that React offers.


SPA = Single Page App SSR = Server Side Rendered

SPAs run in the browser, therefore they must be written in JavaScript (or something that compiles to it.)

SPAs have the drawback of having to load a bunch of JavaScript before rendering anything, so the initial page load tends to be slow. Next.js gets around this by performing SSR for the initial page view, and then you're already looking at that page while all of the JS loads to render subsequent pages.

The term 'SPA' is a little outdated - since HTML5 history (which is nearly a decade old now) most 'SPAs' are actually multiple pages.

'web apps' is better.

They stand for Single Page Application (client side) and Server Side Rendering (which makes a JS app render more like a normal server side page for the client) respectively.

single-page-app, server-side-rendering

I've been using Next.js for a fairly big e-commerce project for a client, and I have to say it's great.

The framework itself makes working with a React, universal rendering app much easier than other solutions I've worked with. It's doing a great job at starting very small while at the same time extending for your needs is pretty easy for most things (such as build configs, custom server, etc).

The community is growing and very helpful too.

I'm very glad to see it continue to move so fast and definitely already see it as a very strong option and probably becoming the de-facto solution for JS apps, just how Rails or Django are to Ruby and Python.

Thanks to the team for the great work :)

edit: typos

It's great but not becoming the de-facto. I believe Gatsby is on that path, in terms of popularity they seem to be ahead.

I just have to say that Gatsby has a lot of work to do to reduce the amount of boilerplate and tweaking involved for creating say a simple blog site. In some parts I feel they are over-abstracting maybe a little too much at the cost of simplicity. Eg. the spagetti required to render blog-pages from markdown is pretty ugly.

Agree. Gatsby has some nice features out of the box, but learning to use them all isn't easy. As static site generators go, Jekyll was much simpler to learn and get going with.

Great answer from Tim [1], the lead maintainer of Next on the difference of the 2 (the whole thread is great).

I've never used Gatsby so I can't really judge, but my understanding has always been that Gatsby is mostly focused on static sites. It can definitely do dynamic apps but it being not focused on this would concern me for support / experience of more complex things.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/reactjs/comments/992n2r/next_vs_gat...

Also learned about Razzle through that thread:


> Universal JavaScript applications are tough to setup. Either you buy into a framework like Next.js or react-server, fork a boilerplate, or set things up yourself. Aiming to fill this void, Razzle is a tool that abstracts all complex configuration needed for SSR into a single dependency--giving you the awesome developer experience of create-react-app, but then leaving the rest of your app's architectural decisions about frameworks, routing, and data fetching up to you. With this approach, Razzle not only works with React, but also Reason, Elm, Vue, Angular, and most importantly......whatever comes next.

Sounds like a really nice alternative to Next.js and Gatsby. Does anyone have any experience with it?

Just finished running a project with Razzle. It’s nice, the only headaches we experienced were with the SCSS plugin and using environment variables. Decent experience.

We're currently migrating from Gatsby to Next (we need things to be more dynamic), and the experience has been extremely painful. The main reason for this is that with Gatsby you end up writing a lot of code in what I call "the Gatsby way", which is very different to how you'd do things in a dynamic site.

One interesting comparison is on imports alone. The old site has 128 imports from gatsby* packages (it's not a very big site btw), the new site has around 10 from next* packages.

I thought Gatsby is a static site generator?

It is, but "static site" is just a methodology for delivering content to the browser (static rendered HTML + server side [rendering|hydration] + client side routing). Traditionally people have used static sites for marketing, blogs and documentation but there's no reason why they have to be limited to just those sorts of sites. GatsbyJS's site has tutorials for how you can do authenticated users, ecommerce, etc with it. https://www.gatsbyjs.org/docs/authentication-tutorial/

Yes and in that sense it overlaps next a bit... But next is much more.

In the way that Jekyll and Rails overlap?

Holy crap, these pages load fast. Honestly the best possible advertisement for a javascript framework at the moment is how quickly the page paints. For me it was virtually instantaneous. Bravo.

I'm behind a mobile connection which has been acting up today. For me the experience on the website was pretty bad, as there were no loading indicators. I clicked on a link and it did nothing for several seconds. Since it's not a real page load, my browser did not show any indication of loading either.

I'm not entirely sure what next.js does, but I would be wary of using this library due to the bad website experience on a non-optimal connection.

Loading indicators are left up for developers to add in next.js, but aren't very difficult to do.

I've used react-redux-loading-bar[1] in a recent small project of mine and it worked quite well so far.

I'm not sure about working with the native loading indicators though.

In general I quite like the way next.js is handling these things: It's pretty bare-bone but provides a lot of examples of how to do more advanced things.[2]

There's even an example for loading indicators: https://github.com/zeit/next.js/tree/canary/examples/with-lo...

[1] https://github.com/mironov/react-redux-loading-bar [2] https://github.com/zeit/next.js/tree/canary/examples

Great explanation @mAritz!

Thank you for your feedback @Ndymium, we've shipped a new version of the website that has a loading indication (based on the with-loading example posted above)

Note that these pages are not serving dynamic data - unless I'm mistaken, they are an example of Next.js static export

Interesting read from Dec 2018 [1] about Next.js:

SSR throughput of your server is significantly less than CSR throughput. For react in particular, the throughput impact is extremely large. ReactDOMServer.renderToString is a synchronous CPU bound call, which holds the event loop, which means the server will not be able to process any other request till ReactDOMServer.renderToString completes.


Using Pre-Rendered CRA addresses both the SEO and performance concerns around using CRA without the complexity that Next.js introduces

[1] https://codeburst.io/next-js-ssr-vs-create-react-app-csr-745...

Acronym translations:

   SSR: Server-side rendering
   CSR: Client-side rendering
   CRA: create-react-app

@zeit employees are some really talented developers

Interested to see serverless as part of a web framework. My understanding was AWS Lambda and similar platforms were best for asynchronous workloads, but for web stuff the cold start could be too long for things to feel snappy. Has that changed recently?

It actually works really well for render workloads like server-side rendering too, the reason for this is that rendering can be quite expensive and blocks the thread. With Serverless you're able to scale the renderer to infinite instances.

The cold-boot problem is an interesting one, it's heavily correlated to the serverless function size, this is why we implemented a complete output target for serverless, to output the smallest possible function that is completely standalone, no dependencies. This makes cold-boot considerably faster. For example on https://next-news.now.sh/ it's hard to tell the difference between cold-boot and warm functions.

That’s interesting thanks - I didn’t know this. And thanks for the example site too! Definitely feels snappier than I anticipated.

One concern on mobile where I find the scrolling is not respond for a second or longer whenever I swipe back to previous page in Safari, applicable in some of the showcases in Next.js too, is it the expected user experience?

People are calling out the routing issues specific to next.js ... I am not using that, but am using react with redux and routing (connected-react-router) and haven't experienced the types of issue you mention. Though many on here point out that next.js routing is a major shortcoming.

If you are going to use it as a static site generator, you should also try Hugo + the Mainroad theme, generated files are super light and easy to style as you wish.

So the tutorial requires me to login with github? Sorry, not gonna happen.

You can still access the content without logging in, just use the navigation on the left rather than clicking on "login & start". It does feel pretty aggressive of them to want you to log in.

The content that is accessible through the navigation seams to be only a teaser for the content that is hidden behind the login.

Why they require login for tutorial pages in the first place?

The copy says it's some interactive thing with quizzes and such.

I didn't get any value out of the 'gamification' element. Would have preferred to have not logged in.

We're currently working on rewriting /learn to not require any login while still retaining the gamification element (in offline storage). Meaning that you get the best of both worlds.

Just to explain the reason there is a login at all, this is mostly for historical reasons. The original learnnextjs.com built by Arunoda was based on another project he created for teaching Meteor.

Anyway as said we're rewriting /learn, using MDX (http://github.com/mdx-js/mdx) for content and the quizzes will store the result in your browser.

Very cool! Makes sense that you got it for free from Meteor, great that you're iterating based on feedback.

How similar is this with Nuxt.js?

Next predates Nuxt, so Nuxt was inspired by Next.

Next = SSR + React Nuxt = SSR + Vue.js

thank you, this helps. The question comes because I do not have a handle on react.js and I do know something about Vue.js.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact