HTML/CSS/JS traditionnels
Results in the Tech Stack study
Results come from publishers’ answers and cannot be edited by the vendor. Learn more
What its users say (19)
2/10“Very dated (2016) and very hard to evolve, with some aberrations.”
7/10“Server-side rendering, so no major need, despite a few lingering jQuery dependencies.”
8/10“Good compromise between development time, simplicity, web performance, accessibility and SEO.”
7/10“Not necessarily the most productive, but very good for maintaining top-level web performance.”
8/10“Fairly satisfactory as it allows us to keep things as lightweight as possible.”
10/10“No framework, to keep control and optimise performance.”
7/10“Fits our needs as closely as possible.”
10/10“Simple, robust, lightweight and with no external dependencies.”
10/10“Absolute control over the code for performance.”
8/10“Very flexible and adaptable to our varied and changing needs.”
10/10“It matches our needs, easily maintainable for a small team.”
4/10“Agility and development speed.”
8/10“We have a good level of web performance, but we could do even better by optimising the ad integrations.”
6/10“Complexity of the media outlet rather than of the stack.”
8/10“It gives us total control over the code and extensive customisation without depending on too many external frameworks/libraries.”
10/10“Flexibility, scalability, available resources (FTEs).”
7/10“Our Drupal 7 site mainly uses HTML, CSS and jQuery for the front end.”
8/10“The most common languages.”
10/10“Simple, high-performing, robust, SEO.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.