4 ms·
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't sound all that different from your average static site generator—Python-based Jinja templating for HTML files versu
by spondylosaurus 3y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't sound all that different from your average static site generator—Python-based Jinja templating for HTML files versus Ruby-based Liquid templating for HTML/Markdown files (i.e., Jekyll).
- nickstinemates 3y agoInstead of using an off the shelf framework, they made their own. And that's cool. Making stuff is fun.
- spondylosaurus 3y agoFor sure! I'm all in favor of bespoke new tools. If anything I'm just confused about the way they describe this in contrast to SSGs (and why a SSG wasn't a good option for them), and then go on to create a tool that literally generates a static site. :P Maybe I'm being obtuse, but the reasons they gave for not using an established SSG primed me to expect a radically new solution. Versus "we didn't like any existing SSGs so we built our own," which was my takeaway from the whole thing.
- Terretta 3y agoI'm with you. Jinja and watchdog.py taking somefile.src.html -> somefile.html feels a bit static-site-gen-ish.
- fullstackchris 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoCan you please stop posting unsubstantive comments? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mystertea 3y agoI was thinking the same thing. If the author's goal was simplicity, it seems like a strange choice to forgo using an existing SSG only to build a bespoke one on their own. A PHP site (for the includes), or an out-of-the-box SSG would make much more sense, IMO.