3 ms·
I tried Hugo and Jekyll and such, but it felt out of flow, and I felt going through docs and setting up builds was more effort than just writing it in HTML. The
by muzani 2y ago
I tried Hugo and Jekyll and such, but it felt out of flow, and I felt going through docs and setting up builds was more effort than just writing it in HTML. The true benefit of HTML IMO is being able to just save something in a plaintext editor and then open it right away.
These days you can probably just write whatever format you like and Claude or ChatGPT will convert it to HTML.
- shpx 2y agoI spent hours researching the right Markdown to HTML renderer. Writing HTML by hand would've been faster. There's dozens of these frameworks and none are perfect.
- hiatus 2y agoOr use something like strapdown and let the client handle rendering. https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/ https://naereen.github.io/StrapDown.js/
- alright2565 2y agoThe strapdown website works surprisingly well with Javascript disabled & is less than 50KiB excluding images. It does take (just barely) perceptibly longer to load than a traditional site. But I've generally seen sites using this strategy to be a lot more bloated and slow, so please be considerate of that if you can.
- shpx 2y agoWhen I clicked that link I saw a flash of unstyled content, so that's immediately worse than HTML. My point was that if you count the time spent looking for the perfect renderer, HTML is faster and easier to write than Markdown unless you're writing a book. You just added another option someone has to spend time evaluating to the pile.
- hiatus 2y agoThere is no need to look for the "perfect" renderer. That reminds me of the authors that won't write unless they have the best notebook, pen, etc. Just write your content and throw strapdown on it. Who really cares if there's a flash of unstyled content?