Meta: this has been bugging me for ages as I see it becoming more and more common (I think it’s over half of such “Show HN” sites with their own domains now that are blank for me, a JavaScript-disabler-by-default mostly for performance), but I’ve never asked anyone; why do you use Next.js for the marketing website, rather than just writing HTML? As it stands, the page is blank if one doesn’t execute JavaScript, and it’s executing almost a megabyte of JavaScript where as far as I can tell the <i>only</i> thing it’s doing that straight HTML with <i>no</i> JavaScript couldn’t do is the spinning globe. This just seems like a terrible fit for client-side rendering, unambiguously worse for the client (slower to load, less reliable, and excluding various users and bots—even Googlebot doesn’t always execute JavaScript, only after a while in general, I think), and I wouldn’t have <i>thought</i> that it would be any easier for the developers. So I’m curious: firstly, am I missing something and the use of Next.js actually <i>does</i> make life much easier for the developers, even for what should be simple HTML like this? And secondly, is there some reason why almost no one seems to be enabling server-side rendering or generation when they use Next.js like this? (I thought those features were a key part of why people would <i>choose</i> Next.js, and would have assumed from what I had heard that SSR would be enabled by default, but maybe not?)<p>(Personal context: plenty of web frontend and backend experience, but no React, as I’ve favoured lighter things, such as Svelte for the last few years; and I tend to just write straight HTML, possibly with simple templating. I’m not seeking to criticise or condemn here, just to understand. I understand why you’d depend on JS for web apps, just not for simple marketing sites.)