Live data from Hacker News

Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

arne.me

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#51
Just like a bunch of us here, I also wrote an SSG.

I setup a cronjob to fetch weather data and run the SSG to parse the XML and render a weather "website" on my VPS.

But for the blogs I've had/have, I just use a pre-existing one (zola). There are hundreds of SSGs out there, why bother building yet another one if one already exists for transforming your preferred base doc (markdown, asciidoc, morse code, etc)

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#52

It's a fun project to try out new tech, but you have to acknowledge that you're doing it for fun rather than any sort of necessary reason. It's like when you build a game engine and never get around to doing the hard part: building the game. It's a procrastination time hole that mostly just distracts us from the harder, less concrete, less fun thing we supposedly set out to do in the first place. It keeps us from shi…

> The hard part of writing something worth reading is not your tech stack.

This project isn't about blogging, you need to look at it from a side project pov.

I think this is a common misconception, that these people want to write a blog post but are failing or procrastinating when they don't have to. When in reality, these people are developers and makers who look at their personal website from tech community's "little corner on the internet" pov.

They feel frustrated with the solution and feel they can develop better-tailored one for themselves. Putting out blog posts isn't a priority or a concern for most of these developers. They're passionate about their tools. They make tons of side projects. They're not wasting time. They don't necessarily have a more important post to write about.

If you're looking at it from a blogger/writer's perspective, sure that's wasteful, but, again, that's not what this is about.

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#54

It's a fun project to try out new tech, but you have to acknowledge that you're doing it for fun rather than any sort of necessary reason. It's like when you build a game engine and never get around to doing the hard part: building the game. It's a procrastination time hole that mostly just distracts us from the harder, less concrete, less fun thing we supposedly set out to do in the first place. It keeps us from shi…

> It's a procrastination time hole

Yep. You also see this often in small companies/statups that would write their own ticket systems and internal administrative intranets before they even had a product.

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#55
Maybe don't write a static site generator. Maybe just make a normal website made of individual HTML and other files that doesn't require any "generation" at all. Static site generators are supposed to be for getting away from complexity but most of the time they just shift the complexity away from being attackable.

There's no requirement for websites to be generated either statically or dynamically. The best websites are just files in folders.

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#56
post #20

I'm not sure I'd advocate for writing a static site generator, although I'm certainly guilty of writing a few myself. Instead I always encourage people who are trying to start blogging to do the writing first. Figure out a workflow that works for you - what time of day you prefer writing, what editor, do diagrams naturally come up in your thought stream, etc. It's way easier to get this workflow dialed in when you're…

But if you write a static site generator, you can blog about it. And that can be the first and the last post of your blog. If you don't write one, the chance is good, your blog would stay empty.

Why are you personally attacking me like this?

In all seriousness does everyone and their mom write a static site generator? I did because its fun and easy. Off the shelf ones can be cumbersome and not work quite how I want them to.

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#57
post #37

Call me crazy, but for my blog I just write HTML and RSS manually in a text editor.

If I ever were to start blogging, that's what I would do. Or at least that's how I would start out. I can't really imagine how a site for my own blog would need more than that. Learning HTML well enough to write a blog is not any more difficult than learning the ins and outs of another markup format, plus how to use the site generator and template system.

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#58

It's a fun project to try out new tech, but you have to acknowledge that you're doing it for fun rather than any sort of necessary reason. It's like when you build a game engine and never get around to doing the hard part: building the game. It's a procrastination time hole that mostly just distracts us from the harder, less concrete, less fun thing we supposedly set out to do in the first place. It keeps us from shi…

My grandfather used to talk about most hobbies this way, until he got a little older and mellower in his later years.

Re: Why You Should Write Your Own Static Site Generator

#60
post #20

I'm not sure I'd advocate for writing a static site generator, although I'm certainly guilty of writing a few myself. Instead I always encourage people who are trying to start blogging to do the writing first. Figure out a workflow that works for you - what time of day you prefer writing, what editor, do diagrams naturally come up in your thought stream, etc. It's way easier to get this workflow dialed in when you're…

Writing should certainly go first. But once you have passed the first iteration of your own self-built static site generator or website the "initial" content may already be there from the previous iteration.

I certainly learned to keep the featureset of such a program to a minimum in order to have a chance to "complete" and publish it.

Btw. the article lists five points that really come close to how such a generator may work. I think mine only leaves out the CSS compilation stuff and offloads the Markdown processing to pandoc...

Post reply on HN