38 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight - 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 agoThe 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.