Another good alternative is Grav
https://getgrav.org
Static Website Generators
131–140 of 241 posts
Re: Static Website Generators
#132The main question for me is comments. I don't want to use something like Disqus, and to require something like Discourse would cancel the whole point of having a static site generator that I can host on Github Pages or Gitlab pages. Ideally, what I would like to do is to have an hackernews post automatically generated for each post, and to redirect people to the HN post if they want to comment, but I am not sure that…
>> Ideally, what I would like to do is to have an hackernews post automatically generated for each post, and to redirect people to the HN post if they want to comment, but I am not sure that HN allow this kind of use ?
I would say it wouldn't be allowed as you would end up submitting to HN just 'because' and without direct regard as to whether that post contributes the community. Not all posts are HN related.
Re: Static Website Generators
#133Sort 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
This looks nice. Disqus placed ads on our sites for the second time recently, which was the last straw. I've already got a backlog task in place to find an alternative, and I'm adding Remarkbox to the list.
Re: Static Website Generators
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just client side templating. Which has the same problem they all do of being greeted with a white page until ALL the content is ready. If someone is prepared to accept this it's not that hard to accept generating the html page yourself and uploading that.
> That's just client side templating. Which has the same problem they all do of being greeted with a white page until ALL the content is ready. Or being greeted with a white page period if you're using a non-JS enabled HTML client (noscript, CLI browser).
It's 2016, if you use a non-JS enabled HTML client you better be used to the breakage.
Re: Static Website Generators
#135Another one: https://ikiwiki.info/
Thanks for the ikiwiki link, I've been looking for a way to do a static wiki for awhile.
Re: Static Website Generators
#136I'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've actually written this http://www.camoy.info/modoc/
Re: Static Website Generators
#137Maybe I'm just oldschool but I've never understood the point of these. What's wrong with varnish + [any dynamic platform]?
Assuming the learning curve to use a static site generator is addressed, I would say simplicity and stability are key points the the users of these appreciate. For example, even though I'm technically savvy, I struggle with Wordpress (wordpress.com) and its unintuitive UI. Almost every other (major?) release changes the locations of items and starts having some new-age UI vs. classic UI differences. I'm guessing that many other dynamic platforms are also bloated a lot when one looks at the features that most people use. Of course, there are dynamic platforms like Ghost [1] that have made it simpler, but Wordpress is still very common (so are other heavy platforms like Drupal and Joomla).
For those who do use these, my best guesses on the benefits are, in no particular order:
1. The speed of transmitting and rendering the pages.
2. Flexibility to host the site anywhere where there's just a web server, even a low powered, low resource one (no need to look for mod_php or for a host that allows running rails or anything else).
3. Simplicity of having all content stored as plain text in files. There's no database to fiddle with or administer.
4. Flexibility to easily create their own templates (probably using a favorite templating engine).
5. Better and simpler control over security since the web server and the underlying OS are the main concerns (without adding several more layers on the server - this may be an oversimplification, but there are fewer things to worry about in general).
6. Better stability (fewer moving parts).
7. Version control of content, if one uses git or something similar.
[1]: https://ghost.org/
Re: Static Website Generators
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's just client side templating. Which has the same problem they all do of being greeted with a white page until ALL the content is ready. Or being greeted with a white page period if you're using a non-JS enabled HTML client (noscript, CLI browser).
It's 2016, if you use a non-JS enabled HTML client you better be used to the breakage.
Sure I'm used to closing the page, because really screw you if you can't display half a dozen paragraphs of text without JS.
Re: Static Website Generators
#139The main question for me is comments. I don't want to use something like Disqus, and to require something like Discourse would cancel the whole point of having a static site generator that I can host on Github Pages or Gitlab pages. Ideally, what I would like to do is to have an hackernews post automatically generated for each post, and to redirect people to the HN post if they want to comment, but I am not sure that…
Might be better to use Reddit. You could create a subreddit explicitly to serve as your comment section. This achieves the goal of outsourcing your comments to an established site without raising concerns of astroturfing.
Re: Static Website Generators
#140Earlier 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 is optimized for speed (Hugo sites can be built in milliseconds) I suspect it's based on a minimal set of test cases, not a full site. With hundreds of pages mine takes anything from 30 seconds to a couple of minutes to build.
Are you using the syntax highlighting (i.e. Pygments) feature? It significantly raises the generation time.