Follow

"Making a website builder in C is stupid, why don't you install ruby, install the gems, install jekyll, transcribe all of your content to markdown, setup the deploy toolchain instead!?"

@neauoire To be fair, with Jekyll you are pretty much ready to go, with hundreds if not thousands of high quality templates: both free and paid which all use the same standard scheme of Jekyll. Millionbs of plugins, and a blog-first experience.

Same if you develop a webapp with Ruby on Rails: Convention over Configuration.

However, with custom C code... Good luck.

Oh! And good luck securing that website, too! (Considering Jekyll is static and thus literally unhackable, except the web server that's serving static content itself, for example).

@0x00 @neauoire Since we're just talking about a website builder (I get this as static website builder), security should not be such a concern, except if there is a plan to automatically parse external data (prone to injection client side, but small risk I guess)

@neauoire @schematicwizard Jekyll is indeed static, yes.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to CGI, what you actually meant was a C-based website building framework. My bad. I take back everything I've said 😂​

Except the part referring to the huge community of gems and plug-ins, of course... But that's kinda irrelevant as a single point.

@0x00 @schematicwizard I just had a small simple 100ish pages website to build, I went ahead and built a 150 lines-ish of C thing, and I'm getting flak for not using something like Jekyll. That's where this stems from, but I understand that my solution is definitely not something that scales very well.

@neauoire @schematicwizard To be fair I'm pretty sure Jekyll also started as a small and dirty hack.

In fact, all the big projects I've had the chance to work in always started as tiny, shitty, ugly spaghetti code messes.

So yeah power to you.

@neauoire People forget it's just building a bunch of text files. Any Template lib/String.replace + a few lines of glue code get you there.

@neauoire Jekyll of all things has always struck me as giant overkill for static site generation. Then again, I always used Hugo, which in comparison ALSO feels like bloat. I do like the new approach for 100r though, quite a bit!

@xj9 @neauoire saaaammmmeeee...in a world where Rust and Python and C exist, where infrastructure automation scripting can do all the heavy lifting for you...

...yeah, still not seeing a reason for "putting text on the interwebs" should need this many prerequisites?

The only reason I'm still interacting with Ruby in 2020 is OpenProject, and the moment there's a viable alternative, I'm done.

@neauoire (idle thought inspired by your post)

the internet must have been kinda more secure overall when more people were coding their own sites instead of using standardized tools and large platforms

like even if the code is insecure, it’s insecure in a unique way that a botnet wouldn’t be great at exploiting

@mood That's an interesting way to look at it, it reminds me of the argument that "monoculture is less resilient".

@neauoire @mood on the flip side, other people can solve problems and you could benefit "for free". The risk/benefit I feel is connected to the complexity of the softwares.

I think a lot of the earlier "solutions" in the web space were overly complex for the problem they were solving. Thus a lot more people were insecure. For example, WordPress.

@mood @neauoire Alas, cgi bin was almost universally badly used and abused back then...

@neauoire I don't know if doing it in C is reasonable or not. I'm getting old for C, but I did one in 200 lines Chibi-scheme with no external dependencies just because I was so mad at how complex are common ones:

gitlab.com/ElenQ/schemeato/blo

@neauoire

I'd plug my own project as a response, but it's not complete yet, and I don't want to be annoying.

The base concept is "make but for static websites", but the implementation is different.

It also doesn't force you to use any specific folder structure, or markup format. Hell, you can make it return something other than HTML if you want, just write the scripts for it.

And, it's just a single binary, so no need to mess with Ruby or Node or whatever.

@admicos the point is, well one of the point is that monoculture is a bad thing, I wish I didn't get attacked for trying a different thing and suggested to use a stock product each time. I'm happy you're developing your own solution to release your site, it'll be specifically answering the needs of your own web pages.

@neauoire

> I wish I didn't get attacked for trying a different thing and suggested to use a stock product each time.

If everyone were to just use existing products, who would be there to invent?

@neauoire if you're not using kubernetes you're doing it wrong 😂

@neauoire tools like jekyll etc are great because they enable to do things. But it's at the cost of obfuscating and mystifying what is actually required to do these things. If you build the stack high enough you'll forget what you were supposed to do in the first place.

@neauoire this is the perfect illustration of selecting and using a static site gen toolkit :D

@electret @neauoire also a good illustration of the typical way i get sidetracked

@electret @neauoire or i mean: the typical way i manage to sidetrack myself

@electret "installing deps to get docker containers running"

"what do YOU think I'm doing! I'm trying to write some simple HTML pages!?"

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Merveilles

Revel in the marvels of the universe. We are a collective of forward-thinking individuals who strive to better ourselves and our surroundings through constant creation. We express ourselves through music, art, games, and writing. We also put great value in play. A warm welcome to any like-minded people who feel these ideals resonate with them. Check out our Patreon to see our donations.