3 ms·

Interesting. On the plus side, it's a tiny fast CMS that can likely be used on minimal-ish hardware. On the down side, A) it's x86 assembler while most really

Interesting. On the plus side, it's a tiny fast CMS that can likely be used on minimal-ish hardware. On the down side, A) it's x86 assembler while most really minimal hardware these days is ARM-based, and B) it generates all of its HTML on the fly so there's a chance that decently-done caching with generation of static content will beat it, particularly in situations where MiniMagAsm is working through an entire directory structure to generate navigation. I think it's an interesting concept that might actually find some use in the real world if it was ARM assembler, but right now it's an ultralightweight solution that will run primarily on hardware that is unlikely to really need that light weight. It might be interesting to compare its performance to Blosxsom or its other-language derivatives, particularly with those in static generation mode instead of CGI mode.

pekk 12y ago
You are in favor of ARM for whatever reason but that doesn't mean that ARM is the definition of "really minimal".
- fencepost 12y ago
  It's not so much that I favor ARM, just that there seems to be a huge variety of low-power (CPU and energy) systems out there based on the various levels of ARM architecture. Routers, development boards, smartphones, etc. all seem to run on ARM-licensed designs. If there's a similar quantity of x86-based low-power systems I'm not aware of it even in passing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it probably does mean that x86-based systems of the sort aren't widely internet-connected devices which means that an assembler-based CGI CMS is probably not really relevant for them. Edit: and I should add that by "really minimal" I'm not talking the true low-end of embedded microcontrollers at the Arduino level or below, I'm just talking about network-connectable devices with power consumption measured in single-digit watts.

pekk 12y ago

You are in favor of ARM for whatever reason but that doesn't mean that ARM is the definition of "really minimal".

fencepost 12y ago
It's not so much that I favor ARM, just that there seems to be a huge variety of low-power (CPU and energy) systems out there based on the various levels of ARM architecture. Routers, development boards, smartphones, etc. all seem to run on ARM-licensed designs. If there's a similar quantity of x86-based low-power systems I'm not aware of it even in passing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it probably does mean that x86-based systems of the sort aren't widely internet-connected devices which means that an assembler-based CGI CMS is probably not really relevant for them. Edit: and I should add that by "really minimal" I'm not talking the true low-end of embedded microcontrollers at the Arduino level or below, I'm just talking about network-connectable devices with power consumption measured in single-digit watts.