>Using a static site generator means that you have to keep track of two sources: the actual Markdown source and the resulting HTML source. This may not sound to

>Using a static site generator means that you have to keep track of two sources: the actual Markdown source and the resulting HTML source. This may not sound too difficult, but always having to make sure that these two sources are in line with each other takes a mental toll. I write in asciidoc and I find this trade off is well worth it. It means I can write more easily, I can future-proof my documents (if html versions/practices change, I just export them again) and I can output in multiple formats instead of just publishing to the web. I don't understand what he means by "keeping track of two sources". I have one source: asciidoc documents. I output that into one format (today, typically) HTML. I have a script that just adds a header/footer to each one and sync to s3 bucket. If asciidoc dies I can convert them to reStructuredText, Markdown, or whatever format is popular next. My mark-up is very simple, headers, bold/italic/underline, bulleted and unbulleted lists, etc. So my "source" documents are simple to convert between formats. I find this gives me the best combination of ease-of-writing, flexibility and future-proofing.