5 ms·
Punch - The new dynamic static site generator [better than Jekyll]
- natte 15y agois it better because node > ruby? ;)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pilif 15y agoMy blog has 512 posts since November of 2002. The only way using a static page generator is at all feasible to me is by not having to regenerate the site on my end. Two reasons for this: One is that the page generation takes up to 45 seconds (with Jekyll, so punch might be faster there). The other is that if I generate locally and then want to push to github pages (having *.github.com is very fitting for a programmer's blog IMHO), every post will also create huge amounts of additional changes (I have a "recent posts" section in the sidebar) which makes for a really, really messy commit history. So with Jekyll (based on jekyll-bootstrap), I can create a small commit for a new post and then offload page generation to github, fixing both of my issues. As such for $other_solution to really be better than Jekyll in my use case, it must at least have that one feature that is page-generation by github pages. Punch doesn't have it and thus, I wouldn't say that it's "better than Jekyll".
- holic 15y agoI just recently found this project: http://ruhoh.com/ http://ruhoh.com/ I haven't taken a close look at the differences between Ruhoh, Jekyll, and Punch, but Ruhoh seems to be solving some of the issues I have with Jekyll (at least on Github).
- minhajuddin 15y agoI have built a project (http://substancehq.com/ http://substancehq.com/) which is like jekyll in the way that it provides you with a configurable layout, And being a hosted app, I regenerate only the content which has changed. I have used jekyll for more than 2 years now, but the minor editing stuff was the last straw. With jekyll when you edit minor things because you don't have the right markdown syntax you have to redo the git commit -> git push steps.
- AdrianRossouw 15y agogithub pages is really the killer jekyll feature. it is just convenient enough that it makes me put up with a lot of crap that would have made me use something else by now.
- wylie 15y agoThis is a great start. Jekyll is perfect for blogs, but as the readme says this is for full websites. I just don't understand why I would want client-side rendering- isn't the entire point of Jekyll that you would serve static files?
- bad_user 15y agoJekyll is OK for static websites, not just blogs.
- qznc 15y agoWhy claim "better than Jekyll" when the README says "Remember: Punch is not a blogging engine (You can use Jekyll and other similar tools to power a blog)"?
- arunoda 15y agohmm. It kind of wrong typo here. I just wanna say It solves some other problem. unfortunately I cant change the title :(
- chanux 15y agoPrevious discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862269
- arunoda 15y agoThanks. I've searched for this. Didn't see this.
- 89a 15y ago".moustache", yeah…… no thanks
- sequoia 15y agoTo view the generated site you can run the command python -m SimpleHTTPServer inside the public directory. I'm confused: you're starting a python server (adding a python dependency to your instructions) to serve static files? Just open the file. Am I missing something?
- prezjordan 15y agoTo make it visible on the web.
- laktek 15y agoIt's just a convenience (and most *nix Systems comes with Python). You can open the generated file in browser by giving only the file path (but then stuff such as AJAX won't work).