From: Brian Adkins <lojicdotcom@...>
Date: 2009-03-08T08:23:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Static web site generators

trans <transfire@gmail.com> writes:

> 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?
>
> 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.

> 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/