Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Punch - The new dynamic static site generator [better than Jekyll] (github.com)
17 points by arunoda 1556 days ago | hide | past | web | 15 comments | favorite



My blog has 512 posts since November of 2002. The only way using a static page generator is at all feasible to me is by not having to regenerate the site on my end.

Two reasons for this: One is that the page generation takes up to 45 seconds (with Jekyll, so punch might be faster there). The other is that if I generate locally and then want to push to github pages (having *.github.com is very fitting for a programmer's blog IMHO), every post will also create huge amounts of additional changes (I have a "recent posts" section in the sidebar) which makes for a really, really messy commit history.

So with Jekyll (based on jekyll-bootstrap), I can create a small commit for a new post and then offload page generation to github, fixing both of my issues.

As such for $other_solution to really be better than Jekyll in my use case, it must at least have that one feature that is page-generation by github pages.

Punch doesn't have it and thus, I wouldn't say that it's "better than Jekyll".


I just recently found this project: http://ruhoh.com/

I haven't taken a close look at the differences between Ruhoh, Jekyll, and Punch, but Ruhoh seems to be solving some of the issues I have with Jekyll (at least on Github).


I have built a project (http://substancehq.com/) which is like jekyll in the way that it provides you with a configurable layout, And being a hosted app, I regenerate only the content which has changed. I have used jekyll for more than 2 years now, but the minor editing stuff was the last straw. With jekyll when you edit minor things because you don't have the right markdown syntax you have to redo the git commit -> git push steps.


github pages is really the killer jekyll feature.

it is just convenient enough that it makes me put up with a lot of crap that would have made me use something else by now.


Why claim "better than Jekyll" when the README says "Remember: Punch is not a blogging engine (You can use Jekyll and other similar tools to power a blog)"?


hmm. It kind of wrong typo here. I just wanna say It solves some other problem. unfortunately I cant change the title :(


This is a great start. Jekyll is perfect for blogs, but as the readme says this is for full websites. I just don't understand why I would want client-side rendering- isn't the entire point of Jekyll that you would serve static files?


Jekyll is OK for static websites, not just blogs.


    To view the generated site you can run the command python -m SimpleHTTPServer inside the public directory. 
I'm confused: you're starting a python server (adding a python dependency to your instructions) to serve static files? Just open the file. Am I missing something?


It's just a convenience (and most *nix Systems comes with Python). You can open the generated file in browser by giving only the file path (but then stuff such as AJAX won't work).


To make it visible on the web.


Previous discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862269


Thanks. I've searched for this. Didn't see this.


".moustache", yeah…… no thanks


is it better because node > ruby? ;)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: