4 ms·
Prefer my own hacked-together static site generator. First iteration [1] was a mess, next (more-robust cleaner and faster) one is coming along nicely [2] and sh
by dualogy 10y ago
Prefer my own hacked-together static site generator. First iteration [1] was a mess, next (more-robust cleaner and faster) one is coming along nicely [2] and should replace [1] "any-day-now"..
(nb. If you need Markdown or restructuredText, this isn't for you for the time being, writing a few <p> or <h2> tags and the rare occasional <a> link never much bothered me since ~1998, images/nav have some Haskell-coded "Xtender-renderers" (simplified and no-recompile-needed custom html 'subtemplates' aka 'controls' coming in [2] though), and for more verbose text-content-only tags such `code` or `blockquote` it's easy to set up self-expanding short-tags such as `{X{c:code goes here}}` and `{X{bq:blockquote text here}}` etc.. ;)
[1] https://github.com/metaleap/HaXtatic/ https://github.com/metaleap/HaXtatic/
[2] https://github.com/metaleap/HaXtatic/tree/master/__tmp_nu_ https://github.com/metaleap/HaXtatic/tree/master/__tmp_nu_
- erikb 10y agoIf you're able to pull it off (i.e. have the time to iterate until it works) this is probably the best solution for the blogging part. Highest level of flexibility, a lot to learn, not too hard startegic-wise.
- dualogy 10y agoHeh. I think static-site-gens are the new "PHP/ASP CMS": as in, every small-time coder writes their own from scratch now ;D v0 "works" already, it's just stupidly inefficient and too messy code to properly refactor (vs rewrite from scratch)..
- erikb 10y agoTrust me when I tell you that refactoring is nearly always the better solution. Consider that rewriting from scratch doesn't necessarily yield a better result than what you have already.