4 ms·

Yes, it's not the fastest ssg; there's Zola for that. However, digging git history with `git log --follow` can take a moment, and the MathJaX server-side render

Yes, it's not the fastest ssg; there's Zola for that. However, digging git history with `git log --follow` can take a moment, and the MathJaX server-side rendering takes 10 seconds on a math-heavy site. However, incremental builds are the default, and a full-rebuild is seldom necessary. What makes it beautiful is the following: 1. You don't have a metadata header, like in most SSGs; timestamp is picked out from git-history, and topics/subtopics is simply picked out from the folder structure. 2. The syntax is terse, and features like un-numbered lists is excluded on purpose, because mathematicians like to number or letter everything. 3. The implementation of claytext is simple. There is no complicated markdown-processing, and even hard-wrapped lines are not allowed. 4. There's a dedicated vscode extension for auto-completing MathJaX. It also triggers a build-on-save, so you can just save changes in vscode and refresh the browser to see the changes. 5. Server-side rendering of math, so that the client isn't burdened with executing heavy javascript. It actually uses a custom fork of XyJaX to achieve this for commutative diagrams.

enumjorge 6y ago
Websites are largely a visual medium so when you use the word beautiful most people are going to assume you're describing the visual aspects of the sites the tool generates, not the tool itself. And I get that beauty is subjective, but when you give terseness and arbitrary lack of features such as unnumbered lists as reasons for why it's beautiful, it's a little strange.
jsf01 6y ago
Beauty being subjective, it’s best left to others to describe the project as beautiful rather than the author. Like the difference between someone saying “I’m beautiful” vs having someone else describe them as beautiful, that comes across as a lack of humility in most contexts no matter how true it is. I think that may be why so many here including myself find it off-putting.

enumjorge 6y ago

Websites are largely a visual medium so when you use the word beautiful most people are going to assume you're describing the visual aspects of the sites the tool generates, not the tool itself. And I get that beauty is subjective, but when you give terseness and arbitrary lack of features such as unnumbered lists as reasons for why it's beautiful, it's a little strange.

jsf01 6y ago

Beauty being subjective, it’s best left to others to describe the project as beautiful rather than the author. Like the difference between someone saying “I’m beautiful” vs having someone else describe them as beautiful, that comes across as a lack of humility in most contexts no matter how true it is. I think that may be why so many here including myself find it off-putting.