I was responding to the comment that said GitHub + static hosting (this). I'm saying that you don't need external static hosting if you're already using GitHub, because GitHub has that out of the box at the flip of a switch (I don't mean the Jekyll and markdown stuff either — literally put an index.html at the root of your repo, and if you want a custom domain just tweak your DNS, otherwise use x.github.io)
> This, along with GitHub/GitLab make for great, free ways for people to learn some basic HTML.
I read that as saying "a combination of both GitHub/GitLab and the static hosting service OP linked". Are you saying this person is saying "one or the other" instead of "a combination of"?
As long as they mean "a combination of", I maintain that there's no reason to use both, if you're already using GitHub (that's the implicit a priori assumption) as GitHub provides static hosting already. Hope that clears it up
> Are you saying this person is saying "one or the other" instead of "a combination of"?
Yes, clearly. As you say, there's no reason to use both. There's no reason, then, to think that that's what the person meant.
If there are two possible interpretations of a statement, one which makes sense and one which doesn't, chances are that the one makes sense is the one that was intended, and not the one that doesn't.
It's totally possible that OP was simply not aware that GitHub offers static hosting, in which case my interpretation is just as valid, and my comment is then useful to both them as well as anyone else that might not know that. Just because something is so clear to you doesn't mean it is to others. Case in point: at least one person (me) interpreting OPs comment the other way in good faith, and only seeing your way in an effort to understand why you're being so confrontational about it. There's really no need to be so patronising mate.
