On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ryan O’Hara <rni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jekyll seems pretty decent to me. What is there to object to? Markdown and > Ruby? > > The rest of the things you mention don’t have much to do with offline > website generation. They’re just languages that compile to other > languages. Jade, especially, is the absolute opposite of a “static > content” language.
Jekyll is pretty decent at what it does, I just feel that it is far too overly complex for what it does and is akin to a 10-in-1 fisher price toy. Comparing to this project it seems Jekyll has a couple "advantages" like variables in templates (sed), development tools (start a webserver), build utils (create a Makefile). This is bloat to me. I feel like "web 2.0" developers don't understand the basics and rely on these magic all-in-one tools too much. I don't see how the rest of my list doesn't apply. Browsers can't interpret them so you must generate to something they can offline. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bryan Bennett <bbenn...@gmail.com> wrote: > So you're saying that this is better than Coffeescript? That > comparison is completely unintelligible.If you're saying that we > should step back and return to a simpler approach to web > design/development - I completely agree, but how does a static site > generator compare to Coffeescript/LESS/Jade at all? You could very > well extend this to work with all of those technologies. I didn't say that Coffeescript/LESS/Jade directly relate to this project, that was my bit of ranting tacked on :o) These layers come and go so quickly while HTML/Javascript/CSS continue to exist. I'm sure in the month from now we'll see another CSS generator and another Javascript code generator. That is the trend I'm sick of seeing. I know Javascript and CSS very well. I don't need some stupid layer on top of that. If I need to recall some standard methods in my code, I'll use snippets in vim for that.
