4 ms·
I think there is some overlap with Jekyll. Personally, Jekyll works better for me atm, as it produces static content, can be hosted for free on github or cheapl
by xchaotic 10y ago
I think there is some overlap with Jekyll.
Personally, Jekyll works better for me atm, as it produces static content, can be hosted for free on github or cheaply on s3 and has a bigger community and backing of github engineering. So perhaps, it's worthwhile to try and figure out jekyll-lite or something like that?
For me setting up jekyll was a pain, I had to get ruby, rubygems, jekyll itself and then a manual config intervention to make it work for me.
If this could be simplified that would be a huge improvement.
- fredley 10y agoI've been working on a Jekyll-like system for fun over the past couple of weeks. I've tried to make it as painless to install as possible, but it does require Python 3. https://github.com/fredley/mirage https://github.com/fredley/mirage Was planning on doing a Show HN if/when I'd made it a bit more robust. It makes sites that look like this: http://mirage.mamota.net http://mirage.mamota.net
- scrollaway 10y agoDo you cater only to blogs or to static website in general? I tried both Hugo and pelican but neither really supported general purpose websites. For example, https://hearthstonejson.com https://hearthstonejson.com uses Jekyll and I haven't been able to move it.
- fredley 10y agoOnly blogs, I primarily build this for my own use.
- scrollaway 10y agoI will look at it anyway, but the #1 issue with hugo/pelican is that they essentially force you into the "you have posts and you have a homepage that embeds posts" logic. It's super annoying. Jekyll has a ton of issues but it gets it right at least: any page you make becomes a page on the site.
- codethief 10y agoI couldn't agree more – after reading a recommendation for hugo I spent hours browsing its docs thinking "So how the hell do I build a simple static website?!"
- kristerv 10y agoyeah Jekyll is really good for what it does. I think markdownsites offers something that jekyll doesn't - almost non-existent setup worries. Also one of my goals is that my non-coder friends could get their websites up with little effort. So Jekyll is great, but for IT savvy people.
- hanniabu 10y agoIt'd be cool to make use of their current templates and input the content in for them then. I have never actually used Jekyll though so I don't know if my understanding translates to practicality or even makes any sense.
- devoply 10y agoI personally use Hugo, written in Go rather than Ruby, Jekyll eats up CPU in a very weird way when you run it as a server, don't like my lap on fire after I fire it up. Also love Mkdocs, for static doc creation.
- hayd 10y agoIt's interesting you'd use jekyll server rather than just to generating static pages. If I wasn't just using an engine server anyway I could see the appeal of hugo.
- devoply 10y agoI don't use the server. It's just when you are working on a static site it's nice to have it constantly update. Hence the server. Hugo auto-reloads the page every time you save. Makes for a good experience to preview what you are doing. Suppose you could use a specific Markdown editor instead to preview the changes.
- seanwilson 10y agoI'm using Jekyll right now and I'm surprised how slow it gets. With only about 20 pages with a few shared includes and a few loops on some pages build times quickly climb to a few seconds. The only advice I'm finding for this issue is to avoid loops and Liquid tags.