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

Static Website Generators

netlify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 241 posts

Re: Static Website Generators

#181

Post by merpnderp »

johnmw wrote: post #73

I crave simplicity in my life right now and am using markdeep: https://casual-effects.com/markdeep/ I write my documents in markdown and add this tag at the end of my document I "publish it" by copying it to my server and renaming it .html * note: To get started, here is the suggested starter document: https://casual-effects.com/markdeep/starter.md.html

Since the website is rendered with JS onload, doesn't this make your site a second class citizen in regards to SEO? If you want people to actually read what you write, static content from the server is still superior.

Re: Static Website Generators

#182

Post by nfriedly »

lsaferite wrote: post #150
forlorn wrote: post #93

The main problem for me is that the absolute majority of them target blogs and if you try to adapt them for a more complicated website you gonna dive very deep inside the code or continue constant search. Now I look at hugo as it seems to be a more general-purpose tool that allows to play with structure and content types.

Personally, the biggest issues is the CMS backend part of the process. I'm fine writing content for an SSG, but the marketing department is not. What I really want is a fast, open, and simple CMS BE that has a publishing workflow where the output is a static site. I've yet to fine the perfect candidate. The ones that are close are SaaS platforms and that is unfortunately unacceptable. I'm perfectly ok paying for soft…

You might like contentful, it's a (paid) CMS UI & content API with plugins for a number of different SSGs.

https://www.contentful.com/developers/docs/tools/staticsiteg...

Re: Static Website Generators

#183

Post by masklinn »

laurent123456 wrote: post #175
masklinn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's just client side templating. Which has the same problem they all do of being greeted with a white page until ALL the content is ready. Or being greeted with a white page period if you're using a non-JS enabled HTML client (noscript, CLI browser).

In this particular case, wouldn't they see the plain text markdown? (which in many case is just as good the html)

Kinda, it looks like they add a bit of CSS (basically make everything monospaced & pre) so the Markdown text is visible when JS is disabled (noscript), but in a CSS-less browser (e.g. links) the file is received as HTML, and the Markdown code is directly interpreted as HTML, which makes for an unreadable mess (the whole thing is a single "line" with newlines collapsed to spaces)

You're really better off using a static conversion tool, or using markdeep as a static conversion tool (with ?export)

Re: Static Website Generators

#185

Post by BerislavLopac »

yannovitch wrote: post #120

The main question for me is comments. I don't want to use something like Disqus, and to require something like Discourse would cancel the whole point of having a static site generator that I can host on Github Pages or Gitlab pages. Ideally, what I would like to do is to have an hackernews post automatically generated for each post, and to redirect people to the HN post if they want to comment, but I am not sure that…

I always thought it would be cool to have a comments service based on Hacker News. :-)

Re: Static Website Generators

#186

Post by zackbloom »

foxhop wrote: post #178
michaelmior wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"_not_ be disqus" is a very vague goal. What problems with Disqus are trying to solve?

I don't want: to serve advertisements, to force people to link to their identity, to cause friction to an already engaged user (no signups form / no captcha), to feel like a bolted on service / widget (I want to feel like part of the site), cluttered ui with to many options. Hard to put into words the things I don't want Remarkbox to be.

Disqus started with a similar goal, but they had to make changes to make money. What will give you a different path?

Re: Static Website Generators

#187

Post by zackbloom »

lllorddino wrote: post #168

Static site generators are easy to learn and host for free on Github pages but setting up TLS with a custom domain name is a pain. I currently have Cloudflare in front handling that for me.

Stout can setup a static site for you using Amazon's free SSL: http://stout.is

Re: Static Website Generators

#189

Post by Kenji »

forlorn wrote: post #93

The main problem for me is that the absolute majority of them target blogs and if you try to adapt them for a more complicated website you gonna dive very deep inside the code or continue constant search. Now I look at hugo as it seems to be a more general-purpose tool that allows to play with structure and content types.

Not wanting to dive deep inside the code but make a complicated website is like saying "I want to modify the engine of my car but I don't want to look under the hood a single time"

Well, I guess that works if you have a VW Beetle ;)

Re: Static Website Generators

#190

Post by foxhop »

zackbloom wrote: post #186
foxhop wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want: to serve advertisements, to force people to link to their identity, to cause friction to an already engaged user (no signups form / no captcha), to feel like a bolted on service / widget (I want to feel like part of the site), cluttered ui with to many options. Hard to put into words the things I don't want Remarkbox to be.

Disqus started with a similar goal, but they had to make changes to make money. What will give you a different path?

Charge site owners for the value added. Stay small but still turn a profit. No investor money so not forced to grow and sell out user base (no ads).

Only add useful features to keep user experience decent.

Post reply on HN