On 01/23/2015 07:25 PM, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 07:17:17PM +0330, Bahman Movaqar wrote: >> I strongly disagree with using CHICKEN for the website. Let's keep >> things simple by using the right tool for the job. > I think you're mixing up two things. One is the tool to generate the > website and the other is the online "try CHICKEN here" evaluator.
Ah...my mistake then. Yes..as you said, I was under the impression that the topic is the website content. > > The earlier discussion was about how to make the "try CHICKEN online" > REPL work, while it looks like you're talking about the tool to generate > the website (if it isn't just static HTML). > >> These days there are some good static website generators out there, like >> JBake and Jekyll, with which one can use HTML or asciidoc or Markdown to >> generate a static website. Hosting these kind of websites is extremely >> cheap: they only need HTML (no PHP or .NET or anything). And they are >> very fast. The website content can be version'ed on a git repository and >> regenerated and copied to the web-server upon a git push. > We have a perfectly fine static website generator called Hyde, which > most of us use for their personal blogs and websites (including my own > more-magic.net and pebble-software.nl). See > http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/hyde > If we have this, why work with lesser languages? Makes sense...as long they are able to get the job done. PS: I never dared to suggest anyone to use PHP or .NET. NEVER. I was actually bringing their names up as bad decisions for website backend :-) -- Bahman Movaqar http://BahmanM.com - https://twitter.com/bahman__m https://github.com/bahmanm - https://gist.github.com/bahmanm PGP Key ID: 0x6AB5BD68 (keyserver2.pgp.com)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
