3 ms·
I'm really not sure Go is a plus in this category of application, anyway. With jekyll and it's ilk, part of the allure is that if I need to do something it doe
by hannibalhorn 13y ago
I'm really not sure Go is a plus in this category of application, anyway. With jekyll and it's ilk, part of the allure is that if I need to do something it doesn't support out of the box, I can just embed some code right there along with the site sources, and it'll be executed when building the site.
With Go, the second you step outside the box, you'd have to recompile the site compiler first. I've had so many experiences in the Java world with having to get a whole development environment and build working just to change one little piece of text, that I really think interpreted languages are a plus here.
- MetaCosm 13y agoDon't hold Java against Go :). It is all a matter of perspective I guess. Go requires 2 environmental (GOROOT, GOPATH) variables and you are ready to Go (zing). go run foo plus near instant compile times makes it feel extraordinarily script-y for small stuff. Hugo adds some external dependencies which can be fetched with `go get` (fsnotify, fsync, pflag, hugolib). One command deps are filled and you still have all the Go goodness. Jekyll requires (or generally expects) gem and requires at runtime (classifier, colorator, commander, directory_watcher, kramdown, liquid, maruku, pygments, redcarpet, safe_yaml) and for development (activesupport, cucumber, launchy, rake, rdiscount, rdoc, RedCloth, redgreen, rr, shoulda, simplecov, simplecov-gem-adapter) So, it all depends on what you value.
- drivebyacct2 13y agoWhat? To run this you need Go, on any system (and you can cross compile it). To run an interpreted script, you need the interpreter on the destination system. From your example, it makes no sense how an interp'd language is any better.