Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Static Website Generators

netlify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 241 posts

Re: Static Website Generators

#21

Post by gregmac »

0xCMP wrote: post #12

I use Hugo for several websites and I enjoy it a lot. One favorite part is the ability to create content of different types.

This statement caught my attention in the article:

> It is optimized for speed (Hugo sites can be built in milliseconds)

Is that true, or does it just happen to be fast? It seems to me that the performance of a static site generation is irrelevant, and thus time spent on this is really wasted effort.

I don't care if it takes several minutes to build.. it'll happen on the CI server in the background, and so long as the actual deployment is atomic, it makes no difference.

A site that has time-sensitive content or update requirements of more than hundreds of times per day seems to be a poor candidate for use with a static site generator.

Re: Static Website Generators

#22

Post by bobfunk »

gregmac wrote: post #21
0xCMP wrote: post #12

I use Hugo for several websites and I enjoy it a lot. One favorite part is the ability to create content of different types.

This statement caught my attention in the article: > It is optimized for speed (Hugo sites can be built in milliseconds) Is that true, or does it just happen to be fast? It seems to me that the performance of a static site generation is irrelevant, and thus time spent on this is really wasted effort. I don't care if it takes several minutes to build.. it'll happen on the CI server in the background, and so long as th…

It tends to matter a lot in two cases:

1. During development. Having instant builds running whenever you save is great for the development experience

2. For really large sites. Being able to build many thousand pages in about a minute instead of 20 minutes or way more is a huge difference for the authoring experience.

Re: Static Website Generators

#26

Post by ncouture »

andars wrote: post #15

I've wanted to make a static site generator generator for a while. Run the script and out comes another script with a wicked cool name that uses one of the many markup options, header formats, and templating engines (either manually or randomly selected). Somebody, please make this.

I probably failed to understand what you described but recently found out about Nikola[1] while looking for publishing solution supporting Org mode.

It does support multiple input formats and at least Jinja2 and Mako for templating:

  - https://getnikola.com/handbook.html#supported-input-formats
1. https://getnikola.com/

Re: Static Website Generators

#27

Post by Pxtl »

Ive been trying to make Sandra.snow work for me but it seems to be so focused on azure and ssg-as-a-service that I can't figure out the simple parts.

Re: Static Website Generators

#28

Post by mark212 »

bobfunk wrote: post #22
gregmac wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement caught my attention in the article: > It is optimized for speed (Hugo sites can be built in milliseconds) Is that true, or does it just happen to be fast? It seems to me that the performance of a static site generation is irrelevant, and thus time spent on this is really wasted effort. I don't care if it takes several minutes to build.. it'll happen on the CI server in the background, and so long as th…

It tends to matter a lot in two cases: 1. During development. Having instant builds running whenever you save is great for the development experience 2. For really large sites. Being able to build many thousand pages in about a minute instead of 20 minutes or way more is a huge difference for the authoring experience.

Number two is why I use it. My site has about 2300 pages and regenerating the whole thing when I tweak one part or another of the basic template or change themes is less than two seconds. Extraordinarily fast and encourages experimentation at least for me. Maybe folks with better front end skills wouldn't care but it's great in my experience

Re: Static Website Generators

#29

Post by asimuvPR »

denfromufa wrote: post #24
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #9

I have been eyeing Lektor[1] for a little while, it seems to have good documentation, and an interesting, opinionated dev behind it. 1: https://www.getlektor.com/

What is the benefit of lektor over nikola and pelican?

I've used lektor and pelican but not nikola. Lektor provides a nice gui where pelican does not (ime). They both work well and pelican seems to have more themes due to it being older.

I ended up with wordpres (shrugs).

Re: Static Website Generators

#30

Post by andrewmunsell »

foxhop wrote: post #25

Sort of related and shameless plug but I'm building a "comments as a service" application that isn't disqus. My first target market is static sites. Check it out here: http://www.remarkbox.com

Also sort of a related, shameless plug--

I've been working on Formingo (https://www.formingo.co), a form processing service for static sites so you can receive your form submissions directly to your email without the need for server side code or your own backend.

I've actually had a couple people ask me about comment systems that were an alternative to (and more simple than) Disqus, so it's cool to see someone working in that space.

Post reply on HN