Re: [Chicken-users] Homepage design proposal

[Bahman Movaqar]

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