RIP Jekyll (The Genesis of the Jamstack)

You definitely have a place in open source. Good teams have a variety of skills so if public-facing communication isn’t your thing, partner with at least one person that likes doing that.

I read your two linked comments, and am still not clear on what you mean.

Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome for generating ones site from .md over the thread-starting rust binary? If so, for what reason?

In the second comment you suggest "listing transformations" "and then have a machine perform those steps". We must have different views on "damn specific".

I'm not demanding anything. You posted something that was immediately downvoted, and asked why, and I spent time outlining a possible explanation. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, but another perspective rarely hurts.

You do you, we all strive to be understood.

*Update I've posted to the top of the article:*

There’s been a fair amount of internet consternation since I published this article. While I do stand by everything in the post factually-speaking, I apologize for the insensitive timing of this article—coming so soon after Frank’s passing. I’m genuinely sorry this came across as a “Jared vs. Frank” debacle. Should I have waited a few more weeks or months? Probably. Perhaps it was originally a mistake for me to refrain from publicly commenting on the statements regarding Jekyll’s “permanent hiatus” back in May. It’s hard to say. At the very least, I hope we can all agree that Jekyll’s legacy as the “first among many” of modern static site generators is meaningful to a lot of people, even if we sometimes disagree on the best way to honor that legacy and push Ruby on the Jamstack forward. If the one thing that comes out of all this is that more people step forward to share their positive experiences with Jekyll, Ruby, and building websites, that’s a good thing.

> Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome

No. A download-this-extension step wouldn't be much different than a download-this-single-binary step. I am specifically talking about eliminating inessential bits and bobs from the pipeline.

> We must have different views on "damn specific".

Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying?

Ignoring that issue, I don't know what's unclear about dedicating a page example.com/colophon to work as a substitute for your static site generator binary. When you want to update example.com, you visit its /colophon, you let it ingest the directory containing your markdown sources and templates and other assets for processing—same as with any static site generator—and the result is a a bunch of post-processed files comprising your site's static resources—again: same as any other static site generator produces.

If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about.

> Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying?

Ok, let's get down to brass tacks.

The post you originally responded to was:

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

That's someone stating that it's nice not needing anything outside of a rust binary, some reading, and of course, as you state, a browser for reading the resulting site.

You then responded with, verbatim:

> 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?

You are suggesting cutting out one more. For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Is there a product or project you can recommend?

> If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about.

You can either blame everyone else for not getting you, or imagine a scenario where your thoughts to you make complete sense, but when translating that to writing, some steps are ignored and you're being downvoted because the suggestions either doesn't contribute anything (as it's written, which is the correct reason to downvote something), or sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted).

You're arguing with me to change something about my interpretation, despite me having spent likely 10 times more effort on it than any other person on here did with your comment.

But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it. I have no power over how you communicate. I have tried making myself very clear many times over, and I assume you have too. But obviously we're not understanding eachother.

Good luck in all your future endeavours. You win whatever it is you wanted to win.