4 ms·

How long would it take to understand, learn, implement, and test this set up? I understand the fully-packed 1 request situation is great for serve-time and pag

by alttab 16y ago

How long would it take to understand, learn, implement, and test this set up? I understand the fully-packed 1 request situation is great for serve-time and page-rank, and after it is all said and done its probably the better solution. This is a slippery slope though because its possible to do too much of that and not enough real work.

sramov 16y ago
There is a distinction to be made here. Inefficient in page load times and performance or inefficient in the unnecessary complication? I was talking/responding about performance. The bigger the site, lesser the point in all of this (and harder). It is a small personal site and I enjoyed the process of doing all of this. Makefile is nice to have in the end, which means it was a one time investment.
- alttab 16y ago
  Right - I was merely pointing out the opportunity cost of doing it. I'm sure its a fun project and for a personal site would work great. Unless you have it set up in a certain way - it does require one more step. When you save the content you still have to run the makefile and then upload it. Even though this could be done in a batch script, just looking at the problem you are trying to solve (run a personal site/blog), it seems rather over-complicated. The virtue and delivery of the idea is cool though - never discounted that. I just wanted to play devil's advocate on the practicality - which you seem to agree that it isn't really practical.
  - sramov 16y ago
    The one more step is the same as in Jekyll or any other static site generator. You have content on disk, (re)generate the site and then upload it. In my case I edit an article or write a new one, type 'make all', preview the result locally in the browser, if it is fine, I type 'make live' and off it goes to a server -- with only differences from the last time uploaded. It can also be integrated with DVCS post-hooks.

by alttab 16y ago

sramov 16y ago

There is a distinction to be made here. Inefficient in page load times and performance or inefficient in the unnecessary complication? I was talking/responding about performance. The bigger the site, lesser the point in all of this (and harder). It is a small personal site and I enjoyed the process of doing all of this. Makefile is nice to have in the end, which means it was a one time investment.

alttab 16y ago
Right - I was merely pointing out the opportunity cost of doing it. I'm sure its a fun project and for a personal site would work great. Unless you have it set up in a certain way - it does require one more step. When you save the content you still have to run the makefile and then upload it. Even though this could be done in a batch script, just looking at the problem you are trying to solve (run a personal site/blog), it seems rather over-complicated. The virtue and delivery of the idea is cool though - never discounted that. I just wanted to play devil's advocate on the practicality - which you seem to agree that it isn't really practical.
- sramov 16y ago
  The one more step is the same as in Jekyll or any other static site generator. You have content on disk, (re)generate the site and then upload it. In my case I edit an article or write a new one, type 'make all', preview the result locally in the browser, if it is fine, I type 'make live' and off it goes to a server -- with only differences from the last time uploaded. It can also be integrated with DVCS post-hooks.