Get the latest tech news

Writing HTML by hand is easier than debugging your static site generator


As someone who has used a static site generator every day at work for years I am on the threshold of believing “actually just writing HTML by hand is probably easier” This becomes obvious when you …

As someone who has used a static site generator every day at work for years I am on the threshold of believing “actually just writing HTML by hand is probably easier” Meanwhile if a web site is maintained as just a folder of HTML files I could do a “git clone” and be up and running already in Emacs’ lovely nxml mode or for that matter tpope’s ragtag which I’ve also used extensively- and it’s excellent. To sum up, for long term ease of maintenance I’m coming to believe it’s wise to prefer static DATA that is maintained in a specified validated format over changing, dynamic CODE that keeps changing and breaking, and in all probability you don’t actually control it anyway, you just picked it up by the side of the road

Get the Android app

Or read this on Hacker News

Read more on:

Photo of hand

hand

Photo of HTML

HTML

Related news:

News photo

I saw first-hand just how much fracking destroys the earth | Rebecca Solnit

News photo

Create HTML/ZIP/PNG Polyglot Files in JavaScript

News photo

Htmd: A turndown.js inspired HTML-to-Markdown converter for Rust