Earlier quoted context omitted.
It most certainly is not serverless.
Do you read? Ex: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/Serverless.html Or dozens of other? You are not in a cave.
Who gave Badri Janakiraman authority to define what serverless is?
Static Website Generators
231–240 of 241 posts
Re: Static Website Generators
#232I think the future may be CMS-style applications that do static publishing. Either run locally (may be a great use for electron actually), and/or as a service. At least in this space competitively, the biggest complaints tend to center around the amount of manual configuration/changes... opposed to the overhead of say wordpress. The only downside to static publishing to say S3/ABS is that you loose server-side analyt…
Dreamweaver seems kind of relevant again with the resurgence of static site generators.
It had (has?) powerful wysiwyg for both developing site layout and mechanics as well as for writing content and can publish content to server.
Re: Static Website Generators
#233I'm not so sure Octopress belongs on this type of list anymore. I've been using it for about 4 years now, and I simply haven't had the time to convert it to anything else but plan to as soon as I can. Over the last couple years I've dealt with countless type error issues, gem incompatibilities, etc. I have one single machine that Octopress generates my site from now, and it's an old Linux install that I refuse to upd…
Same here, I appreciate the work that was put in, but it has become a major problem for me. My torment here: http://garfieldnate.github.io/blog/2015/07/20/hacking-throug.... Any time I want to write a new blog post, the release is a big ordeal, and all of the commands are very slow. It's a mess.
Re: Static Website Generators
#234Earlier 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.
As with everything, this is a huge oversimplification (i.e. Go = faster than scripting languages). I'm dubious if the algorithmic part of static site generators dominates. Would have though it's I/O bounded to some degree, in which case Go isn't going to be faster than anything else.
Besides, caching solves this issue better, unless you change the underlying templates.
Re: Static Website Generators
#235Maybe I'm just oldschool but I've never understood the point of these. What's wrong with varnish + [any dynamic platform]?
cheaper, less maintenance. dynamic platform still needs more setup than static site generator + cheap, html only hosting (e.g. github pages).
besides, mis-configuring a static site generator has way less security implications.
Re: Static Website Generators
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you read? Ex: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/Serverless.html Or dozens of other? You are not in a cave.
Who gave Badri Janakiraman authority to define what serverless is?
martin fowler is an authority.
Here so you can try http://bfy.tw/7nJE
Re: Static Website Generators
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny you'd mention that. We're putting the final touches to an Open Source Jekyll CMS we've built for ourselves (called Jekyll+) that does just that; give a nicer interface for marketing folks and provide multilingual support out of the box. Preview of my local copy we're prepping up for a release end of the week: http://i.imgur.com/1VyxGzqr.png Happy to have you testing it out and give me feedback.
Feel free to send me an email, I'll test it out.
Will do.
Re: Static Website Generators
#238I think the future may be CMS-style applications that do static publishing. Either run locally (may be a great use for electron actually), and/or as a service. At least in this space competitively, the biggest complaints tend to center around the amount of manual configuration/changes... opposed to the overhead of say wordpress. The only downside to static publishing to say S3/ABS is that you loose server-side analyt…
But then, couldn't you insert the google analytics javascript snippet within the html that gets loaded/served up from S3? Or did you mean something like piwik? I have to think S3 would not be a block here, as many users of static site generators also use some sort of analytics tool.
There are bits that JS based tooling will miss in terms of a bigger picture... they don't represent your real load when you run a site that is getting hit by a lot of different smaller search bots. Of course, once you're on s3 or a similarly cheap static delivery option (and/or CDN), you may not actually care.
Re: Static Website Generators
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if this counts as a "static website", since the page is not delivered exactly as stored . It requires JavaScript to actually renders the page, which seems like an overkill.
I fully agree. Why render it in every client when you can do it only once on the server? This feels like a waste of CPU resources.
compared to all the other things your cpu is doing,
and all the time your cpu sits there doing nothing,
the "waste" in this case pales to total unimportance.
you've got a supercomputer; you might as well use it.
Re: Static Website Generators
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree. Why render it in every client when you can do it only once on the server? This feels like a waste of CPU resources.
compared to all the other things your cpu is doing, and all the time your cpu sits there doing nothing, the "waste" in this case pales to total unimportance. you've got a supercomputer; you might as well use it.
An idle core will definitely use less power than one constantly processing. That is what drains the battery in your laptop. I'd rather not spend my battery power if it can be done on the server instead.