5 ms·

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.
        cxr 5y ago
        You missed the "logical leap" part. It was a big logical leap—bordering on nonsensical which you pretty much acknowledged in your first response. If, when reading someone's comment, your first instinct is to say to yourself, "How could someone think that's a good idea?" then your second thought should be, "Yeah, how could someone think that? I'll bet they don't." This isn't Twitter; replying to a comment as if, out of the range of possible interpretations, what the author intended was the dumbest one—just because you can plausibly argue that's what their words really meant—is pretty much against the rules. > I would assume it's the reading everyone made Even after what just happened, you're still making assumptions? > We all read in good faith That's disputable. Actual observed behavior on HN lately seems to trend towards the easiest/shortest path to dismissal, or: How can I reaffirm that someone I want to disagree with is dumber than I am?, again à la Twitter. > phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous Okay, I'll bite. How should it have been phrased? By the time you had written the comment prior to your most recent one, I had already posted two other comments that were pretty damn specific, one of them excruciatingly so: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839> What you're demanding is to spend an inordinate amount of effort seemingly to optimize for folks who are some combination of (a) subject to guardrails on their thoughts but silent about it, (b) themselves unwilling to put two seconds' consideration into an idea posted on a site explicitly meant for curious discussion, and/or (c) possibly deliberately uncharitable/hostile. <https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...>

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.
        cxr 5y ago
        You missed the "logical leap" part. It was a big logical leap—bordering on nonsensical which you pretty much acknowledged in your first response. If, when reading someone's comment, your first instinct is to say to yourself, "How could someone think that's a good idea?" then your second thought should be, "Yeah, how could someone think that? I'll bet they don't." This isn't Twitter; replying to a comment as if, out of the range of possible interpretations, what the author intended was the dumbest one—just because you can plausibly argue that's what their words really meant—is pretty much against the rules. > I would assume it's the reading everyone made Even after what just happened, you're still making assumptions? > We all read in good faith That's disputable. Actual observed behavior on HN lately seems to trend towards the easiest/shortest path to dismissal, or: How can I reaffirm that someone I want to disagree with is dumber than I am?, again à la Twitter. > phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous Okay, I'll bite. How should it have been phrased? By the time you had written the comment prior to your most recent one, I had already posted two other comments that were pretty damn specific, one of them excruciatingly so: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839> What you're demanding is to spend an inordinate amount of effort seemingly to optimize for folks who are some combination of (a) subject to guardrails on their thoughts but silent about it, (b) themselves unwilling to put two seconds' consideration into an idea posted on a site explicitly meant for curious discussion, and/or (c) possibly deliberately uncharitable/hostile. <https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...>