5 ms·

Pelican is an underdog among static site generators but still has a very simple mental model [1] of readers, writers and generators.So it becomes easy to extend

Pelican is an underdog among static site generators but still has a very simple mental model [1] of readers, writers and generators.So it becomes easy to extend and work with. Not sure why it’s not as popular, but after working with Jekyll, Hugo and Nikola Pelican seems better designed with decent code structure. From the documentation: “What Pelican does is take a list of files and process them into some sort of output. Usually, the input files are reStructuredText and Markdown files, and the output is a blog, but both input and output can be anything you want.” [1] https://docs.getpelican.com/en/stable/internals.html#overall-structure https://docs.getpelican.com/en/stable/internals.html#overall...

formerly_proven 6y ago
Sounds like make(1).
- makapuf 6y ago
  make would be a nice companion, but it does not process files, it handles the order of files processingf (indeed, static sites generators and make go together quite nicely)
- sabalaba 6y ago
  Yea I made a static site generator with about 50 lines of code using make and pandoc: http://stephenbalaban.com/static-site-generation-in-50-lines-of-code/ http://stephenbalaban.com/static-site-generation-in-50-lines... Most of the work is just creating the index.
- dflock 6y ago
  Pelican does in fact ship with a makefile for running tasks.
TonyTrapp 6y ago
Having worked with both Pelican and Jekyll, I couldn't agree more. Pelican is simple and easy to install, compared to what I had to go through with Jekyll.
- itake 6y ago
  IMHO, anything python is crazy complicated to install. rbenv / rvm are 100x better than anything python has attempted to produce.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    I can't relate. Here is how I install pelican on my niche Linux distro: sudo xbps-install pelican I've used rbenv before and found it to be a PITA.
  - danso 6y ago
    In what ways is pyenv inferior to rbenv?
m000 6y ago
Pelican is more popular than Nikola, judging from their Github repos. As for Jekyll and Hugo, I'd surmise that Python is too mainstream for the hip crowd. Plus, Jekyll is the "default" generator for Github pages.
- 076ae80a-3c97-4 6y ago
  Jekyll is written in Ruby, but you're right that being used for Github pages makes it popular.
  - athriren 6y ago
    m000 is saying that the usage of Jekyll (Ruby) and Hugo (Go) are driven in part by hip trend-following programmers not wanting to use Python, not that Jekyll and Hugo are written in Python.
    - jdminhbg 6y ago
      Right, I think the counter here is that Ruby isn’t trendier than Python is.
      - sebmellen 6y ago
        Not anymore, but it sure used to be, around the time Jekyll came into the mainstream.
- ASalazarMX 6y ago
  Hugo is written in Go, hippy enough for me. It was my first experience with static websites, and I was surprised how smooth it is: easy installation, easy testing, easy deployment.
  - mathnmusic 6y ago
    I was disappointed how Gitbook, after going the SaaS way with v3, has broken compatibility with their own v2 cli. If you export markdown files from gitbook.io, gitbook-cli v2 is unable to import them and turn into static HTML files because Gitbook now uses custom liquid tags which are not open-source.
BeetleB 6y ago
Another vote for Pelican. I've been using it since around 2012. Easy to use, and usually you can find a plugin for what you need. If you can't, it's not hard to write one, as long as you know Python. I wrote something to allow me to use org files as input, instead of md or rst. Many others have as well.
ThenAsNow 6y ago
I've gotten started with Pelican recently, and so far so good. Looks it has enough flexibility to do what I can reasonably conceive of wanting to do. However, its documentation is unfortunately weak for someone coming into it fresh. It jumps into writing content without first walking you through concepts, terminology, and how inputs ultimately get turned into outputs. This is too bad, since it seems like a really nice piece of software, and the kind of issue that might drive away new users. Even the example link provided to the Internals section is at the wrong level of abstraction for a new user uninterested in the internals to understand the set of concepts they need to grasp to generate a whole site.
justinmayer 6y ago
Pelican maintainer here. I really appreciate all the kind words. Maintaining any open source project can often feel like a thankless task, and so all the positive vibes in this thread mean a great deal to me. We put a lot of thought and work into Pelican, with the intention of making web publishing as easy and fun as we can make it. We welcome your participation as well, so please don't hesitate to help out and contribute! https://docs.getpelican.com/en/latest/contribute.html https://docs.getpelican.com/en/latest/contribute.html

formerly_proven 6y ago

Sounds like make(1).

makapuf 6y ago
make would be a nice companion, but it does not process files, it handles the order of files processingf (indeed, static sites generators and make go together quite nicely)
sabalaba 6y ago
Yea I made a static site generator with about 50 lines of code using make and pandoc: http://stephenbalaban.com/static-site-generation-in-50-lines-of-code/ http://stephenbalaban.com/static-site-generation-in-50-lines... Most of the work is just creating the index.
dflock 6y ago
Pelican does in fact ship with a makefile for running tasks.

TonyTrapp 6y ago

Having worked with both Pelican and Jekyll, I couldn't agree more. Pelican is simple and easy to install, compared to what I had to go through with Jekyll.

itake 6y ago
IMHO, anything python is crazy complicated to install. rbenv / rvm are 100x better than anything python has attempted to produce.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  I can't relate. Here is how I install pelican on my niche Linux distro: sudo xbps-install pelican I've used rbenv before and found it to be a PITA.
- danso 6y ago
  In what ways is pyenv inferior to rbenv?

m000 6y ago

Pelican is more popular than Nikola, judging from their Github repos. As for Jekyll and Hugo, I'd surmise that Python is too mainstream for the hip crowd. Plus, Jekyll is the "default" generator for Github pages.

076ae80a-3c97-4 6y ago
Jekyll is written in Ruby, but you're right that being used for Github pages makes it popular.
- athriren 6y ago
  m000 is saying that the usage of Jekyll (Ruby) and Hugo (Go) are driven in part by hip trend-following programmers not wanting to use Python, not that Jekyll and Hugo are written in Python.
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    Right, I think the counter here is that Ruby isn’t trendier than Python is.
    - sebmellen 6y ago
      Not anymore, but it sure used to be, around the time Jekyll came into the mainstream.
ASalazarMX 6y ago
Hugo is written in Go, hippy enough for me. It was my first experience with static websites, and I was surprised how smooth it is: easy installation, easy testing, easy deployment.
- mathnmusic 6y ago
  I was disappointed how Gitbook, after going the SaaS way with v3, has broken compatibility with their own v2 cli. If you export markdown files from gitbook.io, gitbook-cli v2 is unable to import them and turn into static HTML files because Gitbook now uses custom liquid tags which are not open-source.

BeetleB 6y ago

Another vote for Pelican. I've been using it since around 2012. Easy to use, and usually you can find a plugin for what you need. If you can't, it's not hard to write one, as long as you know Python. I wrote something to allow me to use org files as input, instead of md or rst. Many others have as well.

ThenAsNow 6y ago

I've gotten started with Pelican recently, and so far so good. Looks it has enough flexibility to do what I can reasonably conceive of wanting to do. However, its documentation is unfortunately weak for someone coming into it fresh. It jumps into writing content without first walking you through concepts, terminology, and how inputs ultimately get turned into outputs. This is too bad, since it seems like a really nice piece of software, and the kind of issue that might drive away new users. Even the example link provided to the Internals section is at the wrong level of abstraction for a new user uninterested in the internals to understand the set of concepts they need to grasp to generate a whole site.

justinmayer 6y ago

Pelican maintainer here. I really appreciate all the kind words. Maintaining any open source project can often feel like a thankless task, and so all the positive vibes in this thread mean a great deal to me. We put a lot of thought and work into Pelican, with the intention of making web publishing as easy and fun as we can make it. We welcome your participation as well, so please don't hesitate to help out and contribute! https://docs.getpelican.com/en/latest/contribute.html https://docs.getpelican.com/en/latest/contribute.html