5 ms·

I think that polling twitter and automatically generating the static site every time theres a new tweet makes a lot more sense.

• corin_ 16y ago
  In what way? The only difference is that I update the static code without checking if there is a new tweet - it doesn't exactly take a huge toll on the server to update that code in two files every half hour, it also means that if a tweet gets deleted from your timeline on twitter, that deletion will be reflected on your site.
  • sjs382 16y ago
    Well, it depends on your motivation for going static, I guess. One of my motivations is to reduce load times and loading page elements via javascript is a step in the wrong direction there. Just thought of something only tangentially related, though: wouldn't it be cool if the tweets on your blog were completely static? Like, if they never updated. It would be a great way to show a snapshot of what was happening when you wrote the post and the discussions that may have led to it.
    • corin_ 16y ago
      You do realise that my code does regenerate the static site, i.e. fastest possible loading times? As to "tweets when I wrote this post" - think for the most part they'd be fairly unrelated and therefore pointless but... would be very doable, either in bash again, or by editing the static site generator's code (in my case: ruby)