Hacker News has been an education for me about how many people don't realize that WordPress will destroy their server without caching.
On that subject, anyone know of good blogging software written in python?
Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
31–40 of 48 posts
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your site is only a blog, then you really should only be using Jekyll or Hyde to generate it. Having a backend is pretty overkill.
I really like the simplicity of this approach. It reminds me of late 90s, when I used Makefiles to compile complex web pages from a set of templates. But it seems like static site generators became a fad recently, like Rails a few years ago, and this makes me slightly skeptical. It's always suspicious when somebody claims there is only one right way to do something. When it comes to me, feel free to have a backend fo…
I don't know if it's just a fad - what more is a blog backend with a cache plugin doing than generating static HTML?
It's more like the universally accepted "right way of doing things" being taken a step further. Why should the system that generates the HTML be the same one that serves it?
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#33Oh, awesome. I use the stash constantly and always run into the wall of having to add untracked files before doing it.
upgrades
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#34[deleted]
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
On that subject, anyone know of good blogging software written in python?
Blogofile works for me. http://blogofile.com/
Yes to Blogofile. Because your operating system already has a caching technique: the filesystem.
(obviously not applicable to user-customizable content)
Edit: uh oh, after reading other comments more carefully, now I'm going to have to evaluate Hyde as an alternative (in the 'python static-generation' space). too many apparently-viable alternatives! option paralysis may set in!
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though not written in Python, I'm a fan of Jekyll ( https://github.com/mojombo/jekyll ). You write your entries in Markdown, it converts them to HTML, sets up links and embedded content, and then publishes them to your server via Git to be served up by Apache, Nginx, etc.
The Python equivalent is, of course, Hyde ( http://hyde.github.com ).
When I last used Hyde, a few months ago, I liked it. But beware there are (were?) two very different versions of it, and the documentation is (was?) pretty weak.
It uses Jinja2. This is awesome but you will be confused if you don’t read the Jinja2 designers' guide.
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#37maybe he didnt expect to hit frontpage
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#38Hacker News has been an education for me about how many people don't realize that WordPress will destroy their server without caching.
Anyone know why WordPress doesn't ship with some form of caching?
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your site is only a blog, then you really should only be using Jekyll or Hyde to generate it. Having a backend is pretty overkill.
I really like the simplicity of this approach. It reminds me of late 90s, when I used Makefiles to compile complex web pages from a set of templates. But it seems like static site generators became a fad recently, like Rails a few years ago, and this makes me slightly skeptical. It's always suspicious when somebody claims there is only one right way to do something. When it comes to me, feel free to have a backend fo…
> But it seems like static site generators became a fad recently,
The year 1994 called and would like to talk to you about your backward flowing sense of time and fads. :)
In all seriousness... when the Web was born (on Tim Berner-Lee's computer) it was pretty much just static HTML reached by HTTP. Then folks added static file generation, optionally, behind the scenes. Then techniques like CGI to make it dynamic each request, typically from a C program or Perl script. Anyway... Turns out, not all old ways are bad. For certain use cases, just plain HTML-over-HTTP, totally static, works fine. And hard to beat it's performance and resource usage.
Re: Git 1.7.7 changes affecting the everyday developer
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though not written in Python, I'm a fan of Jekyll ( https://github.com/mojombo/jekyll ). You write your entries in Markdown, it converts them to HTML, sets up links and embedded content, and then publishes them to your server via Git to be served up by Apache, Nginx, etc.
The Python equivalent is, of course, Hyde ( http://hyde.github.com ).
I find it ominous that the images and links on that page are broken.