4 ms·
Compared to Jekyll (Hakyll's obvious namesake), it seems to take what is a remarkably simple system (ie. one that puts your focus mostly on the HTML, CSS and JS
by FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
Compared to Jekyll (Hakyll's obvious namesake), it seems to take what is a remarkably simple system (ie. one that puts your focus mostly on the HTML, CSS and JS and does all the hard work for you), and replaces it with something that you need to spend time actually learning to be able to even compile.
While Jekyll offers convention over configuration, this seems to go the other way. For a static website I'd rather focus on the HTML and CSS than a DSL that compiles it in a certain way.
- oconnor0 15y agoDoes it seem to offer functionality proportional to the cost spent learning the system?
- jaspervdj 15y agoWhile Jekyll offers convention over configuration, it is not that configurable at all. Hakyll is definitely harder to use, but more flexible as well. For example, it is possible to write a tool which mimics Jekyll, built upon Hakyll: http://jaspervdj.be/posts/2011-06-22-hakyll-contrib-small-blog.html http://jaspervdj.be/posts/2011-06-22-hakyll-contrib-small-bl...