> I tried Jekyll and Gatsby.js, and albeit the latest is a mix of SSR > and SPA, I found some of their ideas in how to organize content to be > valuable, but I can't stand the tooling or the feeling of facing an > unneeded accidental complexity.
A bit the same feeling. All node lib in general, easy to load and play with, but when bad things happen, I’m lost missing debugging facilities, etc... > >>> I’ve been meaning for ages to reimplement it in Smalltalk with a nice oo >>> composite pipeline model and an easy way to debug and visualise what is >>> going when getting your template right. >> I’ve tried to restrain myself not to redo it in smalltalk but that would be >> great option. I don’t know the required effort though but I’ll be glad to be >> part of such project. > > I spent the last weekend giving a try to that Gatbsy thing (nuxt.js > and vuepress are in the backlog too), and at 10PM on sunday I decided > to start coding something in Smalltalk, because it just feels better > to me. Yes :) Same, I’ve been trying Hugo and Jekyll. Jekyll was cool for the integration in GitHub. But I don’t like the non immediate propagation of changes. So I ended up using Hugo (+ I like that Hugo has lots of templates). Still I was wondering, that if using Hugo and not have the full GitHub integration, then why not having something in pharo :) You know I always try to refrain that « do not reinvent the wheel »…. But that’s so hard sometimes. (Side note: I use netlogo now to do some simulation - it’s a really cool software… really… still, when I really miss st environnement, is when you model become complex… and when it comes to debug…. I’ve just spent two weeks debugging things… so frustrating… frankly with the exploration natively possible n smalltalk, I really think this would have been two days…)... => so cool you start to write something in st :) > > I don't know how harder would it be, but that's a tool we currently > lack, the static-site generator. And we have support for different > templating, rendering canvas, and whatnot. I agree. :). I loved and still love seaside but my needs are really simple to host website that do not take much processing to host. I want to have 1000 web site of my ridiculous box… Most of the need are very low audience web site called « vitrine » in France. I really hate that company sell such products thousands of euros… (not kidding - a friend scam of mine is selling monthly fee like 140€ on a period up to 4 years !!!). So maybe we need to discuss requirements. 1- generator based on template (mustache is cool) and partials 2- deal with comments, for submission in general, and maybe all info exchange through PR in git. 3- easy graphical template integration (so you can choose free or small fee templates for your site- say 10/20 bucks) ==> lots are just free for Hugo https://themes.gohugo.io <https://themes.gohugo.io/> 4- having some components that will give some live features whereas it’s static — this can come later this one. ——For instance, I want to provide a way to choose appointments, in a very smart way ——I’d like also to provide a stupid and simple little IoT that when a shop is open, it relates on the website, and vice-versa. Etc... I think 1 and 2 (and 3) are what’s needed by all web site generator. 2 is debatable (a must to me), but I find it clever. So you moderate comments through githubs tools (and eventually in conjunction with Iceberg). 3 is really important too. Again, easy at first but can become complex (depend on how many js plugins there are). I know at least two companies that’d be interested in developing graphic theme. The guy behind jekylltheme coud be interested too. Generally a theme cost around 3000€ for a full personalized and unlimited one. Then for individual use, the cost is around 10/20€. Lots are free too but of course less advanced. > >>> Combine this with the new headless image and it should easily plug into >>> netlify . >> Plus to netlify but also class export to servers. I thing Git(hubs) Pages >> are a nice option. In any cas, one nice pattern is to use git to store pages >> versions, and then you can replay on Pages / or on your own server / or on >> netlify. > > When I think about netlify I don't think about an app (as in, an > executable) but as a simple static site, but if it possible to deploy > an app that is distributed and served by their CDN, then better! Same. This is more an option to me. But I guess this is a vey nice feature to have. > >> I also wonder what would be possible with mini-image like Erik did. > > I need to see more! > I don't know how independent a client image can be, how much you can > "pre-deploy" without needed to rehydrate the browser with server > changes, etc. > It's promising. This is cherry on the cake but what a delicious one :) Cheers, Cédrick > > Regards! >
