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

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#141

Post by cxr »

croon wrote: post #138
cxr wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

...where does "writing HTML directly" come from? We're still talking about using a static site generator, whether Runtime A and Runtime C are being used, or Runtime A together with binary B, or just Runtime A.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#142

Post by 0des »

pramodbiligiri wrote: post #108
0des wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im on both. Mastodon has a busy busy community making the future of RSS and podcast feeds that I'm a big fan of, super welcoming people. Golang matrix has saved my bacon too many times to count, also great folks there. The best part about these, is that though we step off topic sometimes, generally everyone is really helpful and focused on the general subject matter. It's not endless gossip, in jokes and memes, these…

Can you tell me which are these communities on Mastodon working on RSS and podcast feeds? I happen to be doing work related to both, currently, and would like to check them out.

Sure! https://podcastindex.social

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#143

Post by beardyw »

Exuma wrote: post #4

What do people use besides Jekyll?

I built a blog with metalsmith years ago. I decided to resurrect it recently and, though I tried, I could not find anything to beat its simplicity. A JSON file provides the flow, plugins do the work. Only thing against is that the plugins encourage developers to create multiple and largely undesirable node dependencies.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#144

Post by cpach »

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.

I’m afraid I don’t follow. If I have Firefox + dependencies installed, how would that help me to generate a static website that’s written in Markdown?

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#145

Post by dspillett »

rovr138 wrote: post #135
dspillett wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Didn’t jekyll prove the opposite?

It doesn't seem to right now, apparently.

It may have done previously but either that didn't last long-term or, more likely I suspect but haven't checked, things were different and there was much more community interaction until the current quiet period.

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#146

Post by gregors »

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…

Open Source is Not About you - https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#147

Post by lucideer »

gregors wrote: post #146
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…

Open Source is Not About you - https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...

It's not clear from the comment whether you're rebutting the gp or supporting them: when I first read it I assumed you were disagreeing/criticising @ThinkBeat, so just to expand a little on my own interpretation from the article:

- the linked articles is about open source maintainers defining the relevancy and scope of their own projects, and telling critics / commentators (like Jared White in the OP) that their expectations of project maintainers (like Jekyll's) don't apply.

So I think that @gregors here is supporting @ThingBeat by basically saying "Open Source is Not About [Jared]" (i.e. that @ThinkBeat has the freedom to define the scope of their own open source work).

Correct?

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#148

Post by cxr »

cpach wrote: post #144
cxr wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’m afraid I don’t follow. If I have Firefox + dependencies installed, how would that help me to generate a static website that’s written in Markdown?

The same way that a "JAMstack" static site generator like Hexo, Jekyll, etc that requires some additional Runtime Cₙ, Cᵣ (or binary B or so on) helps you generate a static website from Markdown—except you're using a static site generator that instead targets the Runtime A (i.e. Firefox or Chrome or whatever browser you want) that we have quietly assumed is already available and is going to be used at some point, anyway.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646>:

> [There is] a "packager" for putting together add-ons. It uses "node.js". All it really does is apply "zip" to some files. I tried to install the "packager" on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. It had several hundred dependencies, and wouldn't run because of some version dependency in node.js for something totally irrelevant to the task at hand

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839>:

> If folks were really committed to improving the developer experience, [...] development would work like this: ¶1. Download the project source tree ¶2. Open README.html ¶3. Drag and drop the project source onto README.html

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936>

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#149

Post by JeremyNT »

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

Yeah, I'd like some corroboration for this blog post's rather alarmist rhetoric about Jekyll's project health. I get that the blog author is maintaining a fork so it's possible he has some other motive to make things sound this bad.

It's kind of interesting to me that the author opted not to use the Github "fork" feature to start Bridgetown, and there's no reference to Jekyll in the README (and hardly any in the git history either). This strikes me as an odd way to respond if the concerns are for the health of the upstream project; it would make sense to reach out and try to work with upstream if they aren't doing what needs to be done, then explain why a fork is needed in the README.

Jekyll itself is a project that still receives active commits and continues to do everything I ask of it (and indeed, it seemed essentially feature complete for my uses years ago).

Re: RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

#150

Post by jaredcwhite »

JeremyNT wrote: post #149
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

Yeah, I'd like some corroboration for this blog post's rather alarmist rhetoric about Jekyll's project health. I get that the blog author is maintaining a fork so it's possible he has some other motive to make things sound this bad. It's kind of interesting to me that the author opted not to use the Github "fork" feature to start Bridgetown, and there's no reference to Jekyll in the README (and hardly any in the git…

> I'd like some corroboration for this blog post's rather alarmist rhetoric about Jekyll's project health.

It's literally at the top of the article.

Post reply on HN