[goostavos]

The documentation problem is because they're trying to be everything for everyone imo. You end up with this bizarre labyrinth of conventions (and extension points) for which the only way to navigate is the documentation (and the documentation is unclear, so...)

I'm of the mind that if you want a static site generator, then... you should just build one yourself! Something completely tailored to you can be built in about the same time that it'd take to figure out how tf to get the features you want working with whatever static generator that's popular right now.

[luismedel]

This.

I was tired of having to learn how each SSG worked so I ended up writing my very-specific-for-my-needs one in an afternoon (and polishing in a few days more)[0]

Surprisingly, my SSG is starting to look like those SSG I didn't want to use. Is it the natural evolution or am I being biased after years of reading lots of SSG docs? :-)

[0] https://github.com/luismedel/clarin

[throwaway984393]

One of the most annoying things about computers to me is that they require constant maintenance. I don't want to do maintenance anymore; I want a mechanic to do it for me. I have built my own bed, desk, shelves, serving trays, fixed my own cars, plumbing, electric, screens, hinges, walls, drawers, tended my own garden, and wrote my own software. The garden is the only thing I still enjoy maintaining. So I use a SSG. They fix bugs and add features and patch security holes and do releases, and I just download and run it.

Incidentally, I really would like some kind of free offline WYSIWYG html editor for the body of pages, if anyone has a suggestion? I've looked but all the simple ones seem to require JavaScript knowledge? I just want to make content :(

[luplex]

I previously used jekyll-admin, which gives you a web editor for your local Jekyll installation. I was happy with it: https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-admin

[Santosh83]

BlueGriffon?

[jiriro]

It seems out of service. Last version from 2019.

The tooltips and dialogs are all empty on macOS (the latest Big Sur).

[dspillett]

> I'm of the mind that if you want a static site generator, then... you should just build one yourself!

If you have any specific needs that you'd rather not compromise on then I agree completely, and do in fact have a plan to make my own. I expect it'll be quicker than trying to panel beat somebody else's into submission.

There is no middle ground - all the existing ones are either simple and/or strongly opinionated (great if you are happy with the fixed style and features) or so flexible and complex that it'll take to many plugins and hours poking it and it's documentation that you are practically programming the whole site anyway.

> Something completely tailored to you can be built in about the same time

And if you have any complex ideas you can develop it piecemeal instead of needing to think about everything in detail from the start to make sure the framework truly supports what you want (without you having to write a custom plugin) and you aren't starting in a way that'll make features difficult to add in later.

I don't really think that what I'm doing is making a static site generator, certainly not a generic one. I'm creating a dynamic but slowly changing site with a very strong caching layer.

> with whatever static generator that's popular right now

A key advantage of using an existing SSG is that you essentially get free upgrades from time-to-time, useful if the new features/options are actually useful or otherwise desirable to you. But that only works if the one you pick is one that survives the churn long term.

"Right now" is also key though. I might use one of the simple opinionated SSGs first with a view to getting some stuff out quickly and convert over later. Or I may just make a fully dynamic setup and convert to static if there is any chance the content is popular enough that the resource saving & response time benefits matter at all.

[pjc50]

For programmers this is absolutely true. And because the SSG itself isn't exposed to arbitrary threats, there's not nearly the same need to have someone else do security maintenance on it.

Pick your favourite programming language, load some files, do string.replace(), job done.

[jbergens]

I just feel that I often need some feature that is a bit time consuming to build. On the other hand the site generators I've tried had missed some feature or another also and they are usually harder to change.