| > 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. |