On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Jim Weirich wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote:
>> Jim, you should give webby a try too : http://webby.rubyforge.org/
>
>
> Sigh. Everytime I mention this, someone suggests a DIFFERENT static
> website generator. Who would have thought there was so much competition in
> this area.
Yeah, it can get pretty wild, I've tried out most of them over time and
these days I've settled on webby.
> So, why webby over nanoc and webgen?
So, I turned to my left and asked the author of webgen why webby over
nanoc and webgen (Disclaimer, I work Tim Pease, author of webby):
His reply, webby is:
* completely based upon Rake tasks
* has an autobuild loop so that pages get regenerated when their sources is
saved
* is simpler than webgen
- and I agree, webby is much easier to extend for custom
purposes, I've written both webgen and webby customisations and
it was much easier to do so in webby.
* has rails style helpers for linking to internal pages
* utilizes heel and launchy to make previewing of your site easy
* has growl notifications if you want them
* has CodeRay and Graphviz helpers
* generated content can be filtered through tidy so it looks nice
Of course, as always, I would look over the options. I know Tim and Denis
(author of nanoc) have been chatting back and forth and enjoying the
competition :-). In fact I think nanoc recently had a release that
added some of the features from webby.
enjoy,
-jeremy
--
========================================================================
Jeremy Hinegardner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
