4 ms·
I tried Pelican just to see how they work and what's so special about static site generators. The downside for me was having to go through the process of re-gen
by frigg 11y ago
I tried Pelican just to see how they work and what's so special about static site generators. The downside for me was having to go through the process of re-generating the site and committing just so you can fix something as simple as a grammar error or a comma. It gets old fast IMO. The other annoyance was with images included in the post. You have to copy then write the image path because you don't have something like a pop-up box which just selects the image.
So I switched to ghost and I'm fairly happy for now. The downside of this is that I have to pay ~$4 a month for a shared hosting, which is fine by me.
- brazzledazzle 11y agoI've yet to try it but that's the downside that would slightly annoy me. Probably not enough to turn me off of it, but maybe. Would post-commit hooks and some kind of automation make it easier?
- Zikes 11y agoHugo has an option built-in to watch the directory and rebuild pages automatically. It can also reload the browser automatically using the optional LiveReload plugin: http://gohugo.io/overview/usage/ http://gohugo.io/overview/usage/
- wuschel 11y agoInteresting. In general: What would be the best approach towards having a part of the website static (main part), and only the blog/press part being regenerated? Does Hugo/Pelican/Jekyll/Hakyll etc handle this kind of functionality? As an alternative, what would be a good light weight CMS these days (ideally in Python)?
- acchan 11y agoPelican does too. Just use 'make regenerate' instead of 'make publish': http://docs.getpelican.com/en/3.6.3/publish.html#make http://docs.getpelican.com/en/3.6.3/publish.html#make
- girvo 11y agoRight, I agree! But that's why Harp is so neat: harpjs.com