4 ms·
For a minimalist static site generator, I think it's hard to beat just writing your own that does exactly what you want and nothing else. In a hundred lines or
by bgrohman 9y ago
For a minimalist static site generator, I think it's hard to beat just writing your own that does exactly what you want and nothing else. In a hundred lines or less of Python, you can have your minimal generator, know exactly how it works and how to extend it, and be able to refresh your memory on conventions/configuration with thirty seconds of scrolling through the source.
- bachmeier 9y agoI've found that for static html it's easiest to put all the files into one directory, manually create an index file, and copy a five-line Makefile into the directory that compiles everything to html using Pandoc. I wasted too much time using something written the way others wanted it. When I wanted to change something, I'd be digging through bad documentation (if it was documented at all). I'd have to remember a gazillion different configuration options. Sometimes automation makes things worse, because you'll never use most of the options, yet they get in your way, and it's at best just good enough, never the way you want.
- lolikoisuru 9y agoMine is exactly 46 lines long. Most of these crappy site generators are anywhere from 20000 to 300000 lines. It takes longer to read the introduction to most static site generators than it takes to read and understand a proper minimal static site generator's source.