3 ms·
Why shouldn't I call Harp a static site generator? I understand it's more than that, but a SSG is one use case.
by michaelmior 13y ago
Why shouldn't I call Harp a static site generator? I understand it's more than that, but a SSG is one use case.
- aaronem 13y agoPartly because few if any static generators talk to clients over a TCP socket; mostly, I suspect, because people tend to hear "static site generator" and immediately think "oh, boy, here's another goober who's going to try to push his bizarre little pile of shell scripts on me."
- sintaxi 13y agoHarp does work great as a Static Site Generator but the reason why we avoid that term is that there have been several cases of people using Harp as a SSG by running the compile step each time they save a file. This is how they expected it to work (likely because of their experience with Jekyll). It has even gone so far as someone requesting a way to "preview" the compiled output not realizing that not only can harp serve a preview, it removes the need to generate the compiled output all together. It really comes down to the mental modal of how people look at the tool and how they expect it to behave. Avoiding the term SSG has helped with that.