3 ms·
I gathered, however I passionately believe (through personal experience) that making an existing Static Site Generator do _exactly_ the thing you want is more p
by Marazan 11y ago
I gathered, however I passionately believe (through personal experience) that making an existing Static Site Generator do _exactly_ the thing you want is more pain and effort than just writing one from scratch.
Writing one from scratch is also fun and instructive as a programming exercise. A classic Input->Process->Outout problem, so many ways to approach it, huge scope for elegant engineering and, once you are done, a really great tool for your specific needs.
- egeozcan 11y agoWho said I didn't? :) https://github.com/egeozcan/jstatico https://github.com/egeozcan/jstatico (very naive implementation to generate small sites) A larger percentage of the developers I know have their static site generators so I completely agree.
- zem 11y agohttp://prog21.dadgum.com/56.html http://prog21.dadgum.com/56.html agrees with you: I still like to implement my own ideas, especially in fun languages like Erlang and Perl. I'm glad I can program, because personal programming in the small is fertile ground and tremendously useful. For starters, this entire site is generated by 269 lines of commented Perl, including the archives and the atom feed (and those 269 lines also include some HTML templates). Why? Because it was pleasant and easy, and I don't have to fight with the formatting and configuration issues of other software. Writing concise to-the-purpose solutions is a primary reason for programming in the twenty-first century.