←back to thread

Next.js is infuriating

(blog.meca.sh)
1033 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | 02 Sep 25 06:57 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
YuukiRey ◴[02 Sep 25 10:04 UTC] No.45101009[source]▶
I 100% agree. I've ran into the same issues, and I would never use Next.js for anything, and I will encourage every team at work to use something else.

In general Next.js has so many layers of abstraction that 99.9999% of projects don't need. And the ones that do are probably better off building a bespoke solution from lower level parts.

Next.js is easily the worst technology I've ever used.

replies(16): >>45101028 #>>45101139 #>>45101375 #>>45101378 #>>45102069 #>>45102103 #>>45102427 #>>45102810 #>>45102903 #>>45103225 #>>45104004 #>>45104045 #>>45105250 #>>45110734 #>>45112201 #>>45126685 #
jbreckmckye ◴[02 Sep 25 11:00 UTC] No.45101378[source]▶
My experience with Next.js are that its rough edges are a feature, not a bug. Everything is geared towards you giving up and just using Vercel's hosting
replies(9): >>45101858 #>>45102115 #>>45102304 #>>45102325 #>>45102348 #>>45102563 #>>45102608 #>>45102624 #>>45111217 #
emn13 ◴[02 Sep 25 13:01 UTC] No.45102563[source]▶
The author's examples of rough edges are however no better when hosted on vercel. The architecture seems... overly clever, leading to all kinds of issues.

I'm sure commercial incentives would lead issues that affect paying (hosted) customers to have better resolutions than those self-hosting, but that's not enough to explain this level of pain, especially not in issues that would affect paying customers just as much.

replies(1): >>45104181 #
1. jbreckmckye ◴[02 Sep 25 15:15 UTC] No.45104181{3}[source]▶
I agree, but I suspect the cleverness is part proprietary behaviour, part having a monstrosity that only runs as intended on their own infra