I’ve just pushed out an update for Source (v.1.2.2) which includes a brand new stack called ‘Coder’! Coder is included with the optional Addon Pack.
Coder is intended for advanced users and provides the ability to take more control of the HTML that is outputted in the published page. Stacks-built pages can be very <div> heavy with content often very deeply nested. This is not necessarily a bad thing (and is often a required approach) but pages with lighter and cleaner HTML are definitely worth aiming for wherever possible.
If HTML / CSS is not your thing then please do just stick with the regular Source stacks. Source is very lightweight anyway and the code that it generates is small. It’s just that you can go even smaller with Coder if you are so inclined.
I played around with this stack on the train to work this morning, and I find it incredibly cool! The video did a great job highlighting how useful this stack can be. I imagine this is a stack I will use more and more!
Another clever addition to Source. I enjoyed the clear video and full marks for the Coder documentation.
Coder adds the best of both worlds to Source (for advanced users) and I think you are correct in the video by saying that advanced users will use a mix of Coder with the other Source stacks where appropriate for maximum performance and control. What I like is the simplicity of the way that Coder has been implemented in combination with the easy access to the Source class names.
Yes - I definitely see it being used like that. Certainly for columns, grids, hero sections etc it makes way more sense to use the regular stacks. But for sections that are less complex Coder will be a neat way to build out those sections for some.
Full marks for this product. I do wonder if there’s are any ‘recommended stacks’ to use for jobs like a slider/form/CMS in terms of keeping the code down to a minimum?
In terms of CMS, then you really need to define what you want (or what you don’t want) in a CMS, CMS with Blog, CMS with Blog and layout animation, etc…
Maybe start a new thread as this is a valid topic that should be of interest to others.
I have both Armadillo and Go CMS, so I’m covered for myself, but in @habitualshaker’s recent newsletter about speed, he mentions other stacks affecting page load speed (which he obviously has no control over) but I think it would be useful to get a thread of recommended stacks that work well with it.
That is definitely something I’d like to pull together. I think that list though would need to be built by the community as I don’t have a ton of stacks and don’t want to be the one ‘judging’ the stacks of others.
I don’t want to put people off using third party stacks. Source is all about using it as a good base for those specialised stacks and most stacks are fantastic at what they do. There are some very code heavy ones that are best avoided though.
For those of us who aren’t as clever as you, is there a way to assess how well other stacks work? Could we take one of the demos and add stacks and do a page speed test before and after?
I think you would only need to worry about it if you page speed scores are poor. At which point you’d maybe want to dig into it and see why.
It’s tricky though. Source is also about speed in Edit mode and there are stacks (such as my Charter stack) which is poor in Edit mode but good on the published page. This is due to the stupid amount of setting I put into it. (I am working on a way lighter version!).