[foo101]

> Makesite.py is "sold" as an alternative to Jekyll for people who prefer Python.

That's a really strange argument to make. If you see the README, it mentions, "But then did you yearn to use something even simpler to generate your blog? Do you like Python? Perhaps the thought of writing your own static site generator crossed your mind but you thought it would be too much work? If you answered "yes" to these questions, then this project is for you."

Makesite.py is being presented as a do-it-yourself blogging solution with makesite.py serving as a good starting point to start hacking. It is very different from Jekyll. How does it make sense to mention Pelican which is, if anything, similar to Jekyll and not similar to Makesite.py?

[m000]

In fact I have written more than one DIY static site generators for small sites in the distant past. The bottom line of my experience was: they don't worth the effort. You will start missing features sooner than you think, and it will be entirely up to you to implement them from scratch. Instead of actually adding content to your site, you'll end up adding features to your feature-strapped hack.

In the presence of excellent tools like Jekyll or Pelican that are also fairly easy to use and extend, I'd need a concrete use-case before going DIY. If there is no concrete use-case, the DIY static generators is just another version of the "not invented here" syndrome. Just my 2¢.

[foo101]

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Some people prefer full-blown feature-rich static site generators like Jekyll or Pelican or Hugo. Some people like to write their own minimal static site generator. To each their own.