On 2018-06-17 19:45, Imants Cekusins wrote:
>> Writing software anew is the fun part, the not-fun part is
> the maintenance.
> Agree.. Writing a new version is often faster and easier. 
> In this case the website is compact, so it is doable: why not use a new
> framework every time someone wants to do a full rewrite?
> Does the ticket rule out React?

Speaking from some experience with this: I think it'd probably be
simpler to do a static-ish site with e.g. Sphinx and this is not really
what React is best at. (Don't get me wrong, I personally really like React.)

It's definitely *possible* to do a static site using react, see e.g.


so I don't think it's rules out a priori. (Especially since routing
should be entirely static. Dynamic/async routing + statc pre-rendering
rendering + React can be... painful.) However, I think it'd be best to
use Sphinx since the main Cabal documentation is already done using
Sphinx + ReadTheDocs and having the same build process would cause the
least amount of friction.

Just to add to what Chris said: I also want to say that it's great to
have someone tackling this and I was perhaps a bit to blunt in my
phrasing -- I apologize for that. I definitely don't want to discourage
you from pursuing this further, just be sure to check what constraints
you're working under.

(Also not speaking in any official Cabal capacity, btw.)


cabal-devel mailing list

Reply via email to