After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be
the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.
Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
···
--
Brian Adkins
http://lojic.com/
Brian Adkins wrote:
After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be
the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
I'll jump right up and say that there cannot be enough praise for Webby. I use it for a great many sites, including a number I've designed professionally, and all my personal sites. It's wonderfully designed, easy to use, with a lively and helpful discussion list, and Tim P., the developer, couldn't be a more helpful fellow. You might wanna give it a whirl. If you do, make free use of the discussion list, to help you move things along fast, but you may not need it at all.
t.
···
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There certainly nothing wrong with static site generation --in some
ways static sites are better. And those are all good tools and there
are others as well. But, I always find myself moving to a dynamic site
in the end. It's just a hell of a lot more convenient.
I would be cool if some of these static site generators had a cache
and generate on demand mode.
T.
···
On Mar 7, 5:18 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be
the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
I did a similar survey a few months ago and went with nanoc because the documentation was good. I'm very happy with it and it's easily the most productive static site development tool ive encountered.
Make sure you have a firefox with the web developer tools installed.
Peter Booth
(917) 445 5663 peter_booth@mac.com
···
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Brian Adkins <lojicdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be
the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
--
Brian Adkins
http://lojic.com/
Brian Adkins wrote:
After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be
the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
I've been happy with webby.
trans <transfire@gmail.com> writes:
After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be
the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
There certainly nothing wrong with static site generation --in some
ways static sites are better. And those are all good tools and there
are others as well. But, I always find myself moving to a dynamic site
in the end. It's just a hell of a lot more convenient.
For sites that have a reasonable chance of becoming dynamic, I
probably would just start out that way, but the memory requirements
for mongrel are quite heavy and I don't think passenger or other
options have reduced it *that* much, so for some simple sites, I just
want to avoid copy/paste or server side includes.
Also, I think I might find them useful for generating other files.
···
On Mar 7, 5:18 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be cool if some of these static site generators had a cache
and generate on demand mode.T.
--
Brian Adkins
http://lojic.com/