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

RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

bridgetownrb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 187 posts

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#61

Post by hadlock »

kevwil wrote: post #50
Zababa wrote: post #13

> Open source in 2021 looks like: > Engagement on Twitter > Official Discord chat room Cherry picked from a list with 4 others elements that I agree with, but the first two are terrible. Twitter is getting more and more closed (you can't see some stuff without being logged in now) and for Discord you have to create an account to see the content. Both are not free software. Reading stuff around free software shouldn't…

Yeah, I almost choked on my lunch when I read that. In addition to your well-said reasons, it just seems icky. In my not-so-humble opinion, Twitter (among others) has become a harmful echo chamber of dangerous ideas and hypocrisy. Requiring the use of Twitter is not a good signal to send.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted here, twitter is a pretty user-hostile platform for anyone who doesn't have an account, or you're a mobile user who doesn't want to install their app on your phone. Read access can/is restricted based on your platform, unless you're logged in. It's also difficult to search for specific issues/read threads, etc. There's better forum-style models to use for support.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#62

Post by brandonmenc »

abricot wrote: post #42
eatonphil wrote: post #8

Personally I don't find static site generators worth the effort to learn or keep up-to-date as versions inevitably come. I end up just writing my own for each site in 1-200 lines of Python. It's normally just a markdown library and a template engine wrapped with a file system walker. Here's an example: https://github.com/eatonphil/notes.eatonphil.com/blob/master... . It's longer than usual since it embeds parts of th…

You don't find them worth the effort, but you wrote your own?

The popular static site generators all accommodate very large sites. Which is great, but it can them very time consuming to learn if all you want to do is throw up some blog posts.

Writing a small static site generator for a personal site can be done in an afternoon, and it's fun.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#65

Post by cxr »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #3
Communitivity wrote: post #2

I loved Jekyll, and still do. This is a sad state, and I hope both that it improves and Jekyll survives. I switched to Zola for most of my stuff a while back, and while there are still gaps, it does everything I need and is production ready. https://www.getzola.org/

Oh interesting, that's a Rust-based SSG. Definitely something nice about a single binary and not needing a full language runtime installed.

> a single binary

Well, one program to generate the site, and then an implicit assumption that you'll use another program (your Web browser) at some point to verify the output.

If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more?

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#66

Post by akerl_ »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #54

I dont often say this on the internet but WFT? I am autistic. I love coding. A single person can create wonderful software that is a gift to everyone as open source. I hate trying to be an extrovert and engage with a lot of people. I hate twitter and discord Does that mean that I and people like me cannot do open source in 2021? Most of these seem like detriments more than anything. * Engagement on Twitter * Official…

I think there’s a terminology gap that the article doesn’t do a great job with. Open source in 2021 does not require anything on the list. But to be a widely deployed open source project does generally require those kinds of things. As the parallel commenter noted, it doesn’t need to specifically be Discord or GitHub or Twitter or whatever, but to have mass adoption, the project needs to have directionality and momentum. Even if that’s “we feel we’re feature complete, if you find bugs, report them here”.

Without that, plenty of things are still “open source”, but users can’t really pick them up for their projects because they can’t rely on them. That’s fine: there’s plenty of really fascinating and meaningful projects out there that can’t be relied on for the long term. But for something like Jekyll, if I’m looking for a platform for my blog, I’d be remiss to pick something that’s stuck in the state it’s in.

That’s the issue that the author seems to be pushing at: he forked Jekyll because Jekyll is a widely adopted codebase that’s no longer able to support its niche, and he’s hoping that Bridgetown can fill that niche for users.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#67

Post by woodruffw »

Am I missing something, or is Jekyll still receiving fairly active contributions[1]?

Even by that (misleading) metric, it doesn't seem to be dead. Expecting maintainers to tilt at the newest windmill instead of actually maintain is a critical part of why so many in the open source community burn out.

[1]: https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll/commits/master

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#68

Post by a_c »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #54

I dont often say this on the internet but WFT? I am autistic. I love coding. A single person can create wonderful software that is a gift to everyone as open source. I hate trying to be an extrovert and engage with a lot of people. I hate twitter and discord Does that mean that I and people like me cannot do open source in 2021? Most of these seem like detriments more than anything. * Engagement on Twitter * Official…

Good technology alone isn't enough to lead to adoption. Tiddlywiki, imo, is the best personal blogging tools. It is a static site, it got an embedded editor, it got cool concepts realised like transclusion, among many others. Go ask around, I bet hardly anyone talks about it. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

https://tiddlywiki.com/

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#69

Post by jspaetzel »

woodruffw wrote: post #67

Am I missing something, or is Jekyll still receiving fairly active contributions[1]? Even by that (misleading) metric, it doesn't seem to be dead. Expecting maintainers to tilt at the newest windmill instead of actually maintain is a critical part of why so many in the open source community burn out. [1]: https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll/commits/master

Maybe this is just clickbait? Jekyll is in a fine state for an extremely mature project.

It would be extremely souring to me if Jekyll decided to add webpack and other javascript dependencies with a newer version. One of the things I like about Jekyll is that it's a STATIC site generator that doesn't try to do everything.

Some sites I want to be dead simple, and that's what you get with Jekyll. If I want more complexity I'd go with a more complex generator like Hugo or Gatsby.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#70

Post by j-james »

Zababa wrote: post #13

> Open source in 2021 looks like: > Engagement on Twitter > Official Discord chat room Cherry picked from a list with 4 others elements that I agree with, but the first two are terrible. Twitter is getting more and more closed (you can't see some stuff without being logged in now) and for Discord you have to create an account to see the content. Both are not free software. Reading stuff around free software shouldn't…

Although I agree, you can read content on Discord without an account. All you need to do is enter a username.
Post reply on HN