back to article 'We want to try and remove tools rather than add more...' Netlify founder on simplifying the feedback loop and more

Netlify has acquired FeaturePeek, a system for simplifying the flow of feedback on web application previews and prototypes. Matt Biilmann Netlify founder Matt Biilmann The idea of FeaturePeek is to short-circuit the path between developers or designers trying out a code fix or new feature for a web site or application, and …

  1. andy 103

    Such sites do not require a web server

    Well, they do. It's just that you've separated out the bits that need a web server (an API) from the frontend of the application... which needs a web server to be, erm, served.

    They can slate monolithic applications all they want. All these modern "solutions" that "decouple" everything and run on cloud infrastructure simply shift complexity elsewhere for no real benefit.

    Give me a proper web framework and dedicated server any day over any of this hipster bullshit.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      As an old curmudgeon, I totally agree with you.

      This trend that is trying to make developers code in The Cloud (TM) sickens me. How do I know that my code is secure ? Basic answer : it is not. It is up there for the world to see.

      That might be an acceptable outcome if you're coding for Open Source projects, but when I code for a company, I would be very, very surprised if said company would accept my code being paraded on Someone Else's Server.

      I will not stop saying that we need to stop trusting the Internet with production code.

      Solarwinds123 is the result we can expect from that.

      1. andy 103

        It is up there for the world to see.

        This depends more on developers understanding basics like you shouldn't have hardcoded credentials in any code that's in version control. That plus a private (Enterprise) GitHub account takes care of a fair number of concerns.

        My concern is more about the infrastructure and set up of applications in general. In the past having a web framework and using a dedicated server was, and still is, more than good enough to produce something of production quality. Having decent developers who understand security principles is essential.

        Where things have gone wrong is that introducing lots of other layers of complexity and trying to "separate" things out does not necessarily mean they are "more secure". But the message is always the opposite - you should use X new technology because it's "more secure" / "better" than what you're currently doing. From what I've seen, it most often isn't, at all.

    2. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: Such sites do not require a web server

      Plus its also full of lots of irritating JS with that call lots of APIs from JS approach (which means it will render FA content in my browser as I have JS off by default unless its for a tiny amount of whitelisted* sites - & if your site gives me nothing of interest / use with JS off, I am likely not going to bother the security risk of enabling it just in case there's content I might like)

      * Yes non PC but I'm not up to speed on whatever word has replaced this term these days else would have used it.

  2. Anonymous Coward

    'We want to try and remove tools rather than add more...'

    So says Netlify as they add another tool.

    I have no idea if it's good, bad, or indifferent and, if it's good, I have no idea if it's worth the cost. Nobody does at this point (although our community, who I trust more than company spokespeople, has pointed out enough potential flaws to make me wary).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like