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
:-)
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users