3
no-oxygen
12d

Guys and gals, what's tour opinion on static website generators? Have you ever used one?

The concept kind of intrigues me and I was considering a Hugo + Travis CI stack.

Comments
  • 2
    For things that are more documents than applications AND that are mostly static by nature, SSGs are a really good fit. Better performance and less attack surface compared to online CMS.

    I've even resorted to write my own SSG because I didn't quite like what was out there, though I can't give a link to it. Of course it's pretty fucked up, but in a way I like it.
  • 2
    I moved all my stuff from Wordpress to Jekyll back in 2015. Jekyll has it's own quirks and I would probably look at something else today (or honestly, I'd probably just write my own).

    I did this write up on it:

    https://battlepenguin.com/tech/...
  • 3
    @djsumdog The website is insanely slow even over VDSL because it's incredible 29 MB. Properly scaling the images would already cut out 25 MB. Activating server compression for text content would spare another 380 kB. Remove the render-blocking JS, and it would approach average speed.
  • 4
    "Use wherever possible" is my take on them. They're cheaper to host, faster, more secure, easier to scale, require less maintenance, etc.

    Obviously if you need dynamic content then it's a no-no. But if your site is truly "static" and just needs to be updated every so often - absolutely. Not many disadvantages in my book.
  • 1
    @AlmondSauce Even if there are minor dynamic parts within mostly static content, some JS fetch can do this, see the "JAM" stack.
  • 2
    @djsumdog what the actual FUCK is that website?
  • 1
    Wow that's hard on the eyes.

    https://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_Co...

    Make this your new friend... please 🥺
Add Comment