4 ms·
Jekyll has gotten pretty fast too, especially if you enable incremental building.
by esolyt 8y ago
Jekyll has gotten pretty fast too, especially if you enable incremental building.
- 2bitencryption 8y agoI've tried Jekyll on multiple occasions and have always been put off by just how huge the tool is. I just want to turn my markdown into pretty HTML. That's all. Jekyll feels like this giant sledgehammer that's built to hit a tiny nail... and doesn't even hit the tiny nail correctly every time.
- edem 8y agoCare to elaborate?
- KajMagnus 8y agoIn my case, when I wrote a plugin for Jekyll, I felt mildly upset about all Ruby things I needed to install and to some degree understand. I felt Jekyll was too complicated and complex. — Maybe if one is used to the Ruby world already, one won't feel in that way.
- scrollaway 8y ago> I just want to turn my markdown into pretty HTML. That's all. If you're not looking for a static site generator, maybe Pandoc is more what you're seeking?
- johnklos 8y agoNot to be a wise ass, but because I'm genuinely curious: who cares how fast it is? How often are you regenerating pages? Or is it a factor because of the change-make-check-change-again cycle?
- jacquesm 8y agoIt matters if it takes more than a short while to post your stuff. Jekyll/Octopress would take 20 minutes or so to regenerate my not all that large blog, I imagine that with 1000's of pages it would be unworkably slow.