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

131–140 of 187 posts

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#131

Post by setr »

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…

Like a business, the success of open source is generally not solely dependent on the quality of the engineering alone. That is, where success is defined by popularity, # of public contributors/users, etc.

Also like a business, you don’t try to do everything — you delegate against your weaknesses. You just need to convince one social person to contribute, and cover whatever social media nonsense is required.

Note that any project that scales in count eventually becomes primarily a human management and communication problem, irrespective of what’s being produced, or how. Either drop the goal of scaling up, or set your expectations accordingly (and delegate as needed).

Of course, sometimes doing nothing at all is all you need (a few users uses it successfully, and it spreads by word of mouth), but really this is just delegation by accident. Your users are taking the responsibility of communication onto themselves (and it will eventually fragment as different gossip ping groups get split-brained), and the project will eventually centralize communication or die under its own weight.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#132

Post by StreamBright »

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…

Absolutely not. You can do whatever you like. Do not let the noise scare you. Most of these things (twitter, discord) are just noise.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#133

Post by schipplock »

> Those concerns led me to fork Jekyll and create Bridgetown.

Please, Jared, contribute to Jekyll instead. There are many contributors, and you will probably get better code reviews. Bridgetown is your one-person show where you contribute the most commits (https://github.com/bridgetownrb/bridgetown/graphs/contributo...). Who is reviewing your changes? :)

YOU can revive Jekyll :)! I would like that. No offence, but Bridgetown is probably on "hiatus" sooner or later as well. I, as a user, have no trust in these forks.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#134

Post by dspillett »

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…

> Does that mean that I and people like me cannot do open source in 2021?

Absolutely not, but it does mean that you are likely to have difficulty if your aim is to build and support a project that is used by many, or otherwise be widely recognised.

If your goal is to play with cool stuff, put the results out there so others might see it and maybe use it or further build upon it, and won't be bothered if people don't, then you can definitely do that successfully without any of the community building & engagement noise listed.[‡]

If your goal is to contribute fixes and other help to other projects, then that too can be done without any of that noise. Unless one of those noisy channels is the only way to effectively communicate with the project you are contributing to, at that point some compromise may be needed on your part unless you prefer to move on and do something else instead. Moving on and doing something else instead, or branching and doing your own thing that way as long as you are OK with any licensing implications, is always an option.

---

[‡] I'm not autistic, nor as completely introverted as I used to be, but my thoughts on this feel like they stem from a similar place to yours and this is how I will manage that if I ever get around to releasing some of the stuff I have bubbling under: I'll put it out there, if people want to use it then great, if they don't then fine too, if they want to mail me fine (I might even respond!), but I won't be putting it out there to build community or to serve one. It'll be my playground, and while I'd be happy for others to find it useful if I move on and stop maintaining it or don't have time to respond to correspondence I will feel no guilt. If people expect more of me than I am comfortable providing, then they can just go on expecting!

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#135

Post by rovr138 »

dspillett wrote: post #134
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…

> Does that mean that I and people like me cannot do open source in 2021? Absolutely not, but it does mean that you are likely to have difficulty if your aim is to build and support a project that is used by many, or otherwise be widely recognised. If your goal is to play with cool stuff, put the results out there so others might see it and maybe use it or further build upon it, and won't be bothered if people don't,…

> it does mean that you are likely to have difficulty if your aim is to build and support a project that is used by many, or otherwise be widely recognised.

Didn’t jekyll prove the opposite?

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#136

Post by pjc50 »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #123
hardwaresofton wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just don't do any of that stuff if you don't want to. If you're writing software because it's useful to yourself and others and making it open to others to use you do not owe them a place to chat, engagement, a roadmap, a release cycle (or any given release). You can weigh whether you want to do those things Those things are often set up when people want to run software projects with certain goals and if those goals…

> Just don't do any of that stuff if you don't want to. That's a privilege not everyone can afford. I cannot do real-time communication, So I cannot tolerate discord but GitHub issues are fine but I guess the parent is not fine with that too and that's alright but the answer is 'yes' open-source projects are subject to digital social conformity like so many things. 'like so many things': Just like how a Twitter accou…

> Just like how a Twitter account with at least 5 digit follower count has become a mandatory for a solopreneur's SaaS product to survive especially more so if the said solopreneur doesn't have other prior networks.

Every solo entrepreneur has to be their own marketing department. In the 2020s, marketing has to include social media.

The #1 job of an entrepreneur is not "build project", it is "persuade people with money to give you money". Forget that and you'll definitely fail.

Twitter may or may not be the right place for that (personally I think not, but it works for some people).

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#137

Post by sneak »

Jekyll is already feature complete. I haven't updated my jekyll build container in years. (I update the site it builds often.)

What is this "dead" nonsense? It isn't a story, it's a tool, and it's complete. By that logic my framing hammer is "dead" now, too.

"No more updates" isn't always a bad thing.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#138

Post by croon »

cxr wrote: post #126
cpach wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t offended (and I didn’t downvote you) but I failed to see the point you made. Feel free to elaborate. I don’t understand why you mentioned the web browser. Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? Be it Chrome or Lynx.

> Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? That is my point. If it is a given that Runtime A is going to be involved, and your angle is to tout the benefit of binary B being to let you to eliminate Runtime C, why even settle for now needing to rely on B? Why wouldn't you try to avoid it as well? Just use A.

Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#139

Post by eatonphil »

tekkk wrote: post #106
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…

At that point why wouldnt you just write HTML? That would last basically forever and it's I think less hassle than hacking together a blog renderer.

How often has markdown changed over the years?

The markdown library I use has not changed its API in over 3 years at least.

The only reason this script is more than two lines of markdown-related code is because I wanted to store headers for other things.

This script is the most complex of my SSGs because I write on this blog the most. But even then it's only 200 LoC which is still (to me) surprisingly small.

Other of my SSGs are even simpler and have no markdown renderer: just jinja and file walking code.

So I'm not really sure which part of <200 LoC and no upstream changes you consider a hassle.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#140

Post by drran »

petepete wrote: post #122
abricot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nanoc fills this niche quite well. It's more of a SSG toolkit than an SSG. You build a Rules file with steps for each of your file types and it loops through and builds your site. It comes with Markdown out of the box but you can make it do just about anything. https://nanoc.app/

Pandoc + Makefile is enough.

https://github.com/ivanstojic/pandoc-ssg/blob/master/Makefil...

Post reply on HN