4 ms·

You over-focus on what's cool or fashionable. For many of us that's absolutely not the reason to go (or not to go) with a platform. GIT is extremely useful for

You over-focus on what's cool or fashionable. For many of us that's absolutely not the reason to go (or not to go) with a platform. GIT is extremely useful for versioning. I want that. If I make a dumb mistake I want to have a diff that I've fixed a typo / grammar / added more links etc. You neither need to use GitHub nor give your GitHub credentials to anything. You can just make a public repo and have it cloned / pulled-from by literally anyone interested -- why would anyone clone your public blog repo and re-host it? You can use sr.ht, Codeberg or just host your own GIT -- it's not that hard if you're into it (I am not). Your way of doing it is fine but let's not pretend that everyone else is following fashion or coolness. That's very rarely true. There's a list of very good reasons to use a public GIT repo + Netlify + use a static site generator on your own machine to only produce a directory of HTML+CSS files.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Generally speaking, I subscribe to the philosophy of KISS. For a multi-user environment where a dozen people could be accessing the same file at any given time, yeah some sort of version control system will probably make everyone's life easier. For a single user environment as is likely the case for most static websites? Yeah, it's just needless complexity. In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all. This isn't to say your way isn't wrong /for you/, of course. Whatever floats your boat. For me, it's all just unnecessary complexity that will invite in all sorts of gremlins to waste my time.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  > For a single user environment as is likely the case for most static websites? Yeah, it's just needless complexity. Hard disagree. As I said above and you ignored it (no clue why): I want to have a history of my static website. > In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all. I can and I don't want to. Markdown is tons easier, you write out an article, execute one command, push the updated HTML+CSS files to GIT and you're done. If we're talking about simplicity let's not ignore that scenario because it really is quite simple. I got a backlog of 30 things to work on and 500+ to check out "one day when I have the time". Going back to hand-crafting HTML is likely at spot #1784 in my brain. It's a meaningless paperwork that can and must be outsourced to computers.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all. At a minimum, static site generators create indexes, table-of-contents, tags, sorts by date, and other such features. Pretty much no one writes good, raw, HTML these days. Documentation is written Sphinx, texinfo, docbook, and many other formats. Why? Because compiling chapters (or pages) together through static analysis is a very useful pattern for writing. HTML is just an output pattern. Your actual words should be in a document generator at a minimum.
  - notpushkin 4y ago
    My website [1] is good raw (X)HTML [2]. It's just a couple of pages though, nothing fancy. If I was keeping a blog or something, I would definitely go for an SSG. [1]: https://notpushk.in/ https://notpushk.in/ [2]: https://gitlab.com/notpushkin/notpushk.in https://gitlab.com/notpushkin/notpushk.in
    - pdimitar 4y ago
      > It's just a couple of pages though, nothing fancy Nope. Anything I can have a machine generate for me is fancy if I have to write it by hand.
reaperducer 4y ago
Git for static site versioning? Why not just copy the HTML into a new folder? Takes seconds. Zero complexity. Gets backed up with your regular system backups. Git is great for collaborative or complex projects, but for a static site, you're using a freight train to bring a single tomato to market.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  Well, even though I can reinvent `git diff` I still don't want to. GIT gives me good diffs and I don't view it as an unnecessary overhead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - monsieurbanana 4y ago
    I'm fairly certain that was a joke

Dalewyn 4y ago

Generally speaking, I subscribe to the philosophy of KISS. For a multi-user environment where a dozen people could be accessing the same file at any given time, yeah some sort of version control system will probably make everyone's life easier. For a single user environment as is likely the case for most static websites? Yeah, it's just needless complexity. In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all. This isn't to say your way isn't wrong /for you/, of course. Whatever floats your boat. For me, it's all just unnecessary complexity that will invite in all sorts of gremlins to waste my time.

pdimitar 4y ago
> For a single user environment as is likely the case for most static websites? Yeah, it's just needless complexity. Hard disagree. As I said above and you ignored it (no clue why): I want to have a history of my static website. > In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all. I can and I don't want to. Markdown is tons easier, you write out an article, execute one command, push the updated HTML+CSS files to GIT and you're done. If we're talking about simplicity let's not ignore that scenario because it really is quite simple. I got a backlog of 30 things to work on and 500+ to check out "one day when I have the time". Going back to hand-crafting HTML is likely at spot #1784 in my brain. It's a meaningless paperwork that can and must be outsourced to computers.
dragontamer 4y ago
> In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all. At a minimum, static site generators create indexes, table-of-contents, tags, sorts by date, and other such features. Pretty much no one writes good, raw, HTML these days. Documentation is written Sphinx, texinfo, docbook, and many other formats. Why? Because compiling chapters (or pages) together through static analysis is a very useful pattern for writing. HTML is just an output pattern. Your actual words should be in a document generator at a minimum.
- notpushkin 4y ago
  My website [1] is good raw (X)HTML [2]. It's just a couple of pages though, nothing fancy. If I was keeping a blog or something, I would definitely go for an SSG. [1]: https://notpushk.in/ https://notpushk.in/ [2]: https://gitlab.com/notpushkin/notpushk.in https://gitlab.com/notpushkin/notpushk.in
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    > It's just a couple of pages though, nothing fancy Nope. Anything I can have a machine generate for me is fancy if I have to write it by hand.

reaperducer 4y ago

Git for static site versioning? Why not just copy the HTML into a new folder? Takes seconds. Zero complexity. Gets backed up with your regular system backups. Git is great for collaborative or complex projects, but for a static site, you're using a freight train to bring a single tomato to market.

pdimitar 4y ago
Well, even though I can reinvent `git diff` I still don't want to. GIT gives me good diffs and I don't view it as an unnecessary overhead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- monsieurbanana 4y ago
  I'm fairly certain that was a joke