6 ms·

I loved Jekyll, and still do. This is a sad state, and I hope both that it improves and Jekyll survives. I switched to Zola for most of my stuff a while back,

I loved Jekyll, and still do. This is a sad state, and I hope both that it improves and Jekyll survives. I switched to Zola for most of my stuff a while back, and while there are still gaps, it does everything I need and is production ready. https://www.getzola.org/ https://www.getzola.org/

jaredcwhite 5y ago
Oh interesting, that's a Rust-based SSG. Definitely something nice about a single binary and not needing a full language runtime installed.
- sleibrock 5y ago
  Absolutely. I started using Zola after writing my own solution, Zola seemed like the next best step up. It has a lot of good, but it also requires a lot of setup to get going. If you don't care about making your own theme, it's easy to get going and start up a new site, but past that, it's very fast to compile files and comes with image transforms for additional resizing needs.
- cxr 5y ago
  > a single binary Well, one program to generate the site, and then an implicit assumption that you'll use another program (your Web browser) at some point to verify the output. If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more?
  - cxr 5y ago
    ...what's offensive about this?
    - cpach 5y ago
      I wasn’t offended (and I didn’t downvote you) but I failed to see the point you made. Feel free to elaborate. I don’t understand why you mentioned the web browser. Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? Be it Chrome or Lynx.
      - cxr 5y ago
        > Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? That is my point. If it is a given that Runtime A is going to be involved, and your angle is to tout the benefit of binary B being to let you to eliminate Runtime C, why even settle for now needing to rely on B? Why wouldn't you try to avoid it as well? Just use A.
        croon 5y ago
        Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.
        cxr 5y ago
        ...where does "writing HTML directly" come from? We're still talking about using a static site generator, whether Runtime A and Runtime C are being used, or Runtime A together with binary B, or just Runtime A.
        croon 5y ago
        From the same place as your: > If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more? You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to.
        cxr 5y ago
        > cut out [...] the single binary That's a correct reading of my comment. To take that to mean, though, that you should start "writing HTML directly" is a logical leap—and one that happens to turn out to be wrong; it's not something I wrote, and it's not even something I implied. It's an incorrect reading of my comment.
        croon 5y ago
        Correct or not, I would assume it's the reading everyone made. We all read in good faith and write in good faith, but if everyone misreads something you write, either everyone else has to try harder to decipher it or you can perhaps try to phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous.
CarVac 5y ago
I use Zola for my project website. As someone who had never built a website before, I tried several static site builders but only really succeeded in getting a tweakable theme working with Zola.

jaredcwhite 5y ago

Oh interesting, that's a Rust-based SSG. Definitely something nice about a single binary and not needing a full language runtime installed.

sleibrock 5y ago
Absolutely. I started using Zola after writing my own solution, Zola seemed like the next best step up. It has a lot of good, but it also requires a lot of setup to get going. If you don't care about making your own theme, it's easy to get going and start up a new site, but past that, it's very fast to compile files and comes with image transforms for additional resizing needs.
cxr 5y ago
> a single binary Well, one program to generate the site, and then an implicit assumption that you'll use another program (your Web browser) at some point to verify the output. If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more?
- cxr 5y ago
  ...what's offensive about this?
  - cpach 5y ago
    I wasn’t offended (and I didn’t downvote you) but I failed to see the point you made. Feel free to elaborate. I don’t understand why you mentioned the web browser. Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? Be it Chrome or Lynx.
    - cxr 5y ago
      > Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? That is my point. If it is a given that Runtime A is going to be involved, and your angle is to tout the benefit of binary B being to let you to eliminate Runtime C, why even settle for now needing to rely on B? Why wouldn't you try to avoid it as well? Just use A.
      - croon 5y ago
        Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.
        cxr 5y ago
        ...where does "writing HTML directly" come from? We're still talking about using a static site generator, whether Runtime A and Runtime C are being used, or Runtime A together with binary B, or just Runtime A.
        croon 5y ago
        From the same place as your: > If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more? You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to.
        cxr 5y ago
        > cut out [...] the single binary That's a correct reading of my comment. To take that to mean, though, that you should start "writing HTML directly" is a logical leap—and one that happens to turn out to be wrong; it's not something I wrote, and it's not even something I implied. It's an incorrect reading of my comment.
        croon 5y ago
        Correct or not, I would assume it's the reading everyone made. We all read in good faith and write in good faith, but if everyone misreads something you write, either everyone else has to try harder to decipher it or you can perhaps try to phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous.

CarVac 5y ago

I use Zola for my project website. As someone who had never built a website before, I tried several static site builders but only really succeeded in getting a tweakable theme working with Zola.