zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. mikeat+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-09-20 23:17:28
Is static page generation performance really a thing for you?
replies(4): >>striki+t3 >>geeio+9e >>devonk+Ji >>sandGo+sJ1
◧
2. striki+t3[view] [source] 2017-09-20 23:54:48
>>mikeat+(OP)
It is really nice to be able to see your changes reflected "instantly" rather than having to "wait for a compile". Iteration is great!
◧
3. geeio+9e[view] [source] 2017-09-21 02:16:34
>>mikeat+(OP)
Time to install is much faster, bundle install is just so damn slow.

And now that I'm not a ruby dev any more, I don't install a modern ruby on my computer.

◧
4. devonk+Ji[view] [source] 2017-09-21 03:24:31
>>mikeat+(OP)
Faster page generation makes novel use cases like generating websites to be stored in cloud object storage with function calls actually possible and potentially much cheaper than a CMS like Wordpress. I'm sure there's some CMS POCs out there like that but the landscape is so chock full of plugins and really nontechnical users I can't really see it taking off.
◧
5. sandGo+sJ1[view] [source] 2017-09-21 17:54:36
>>mikeat+(OP)
here's the thing - i think the definition of fast is in two different dimensions and both of them count.

One is the generation: i actually run my startup's website on Hugo. There are quite a few pages - including landing pages - and jekll was sloooow.

Second, we have marketing people on windows + mac, dev people on linux. The time taken for someone to setup Hugo on their laptops is 5 minutes: its a single binary.

Jekyll - upwards of 30 minutes after fighting ruby and setting %PATH% variables in windows.

[go to top]