Replies

kevq-word­press-jam­stack

Reply

In re­ply to https://​kevq.uk/​word­press-cre­ator-vs-the-jam­stack/:

I'll agree with you on all counts. I (mostly) en­joy my sta­tic site at the mo­ment, plus it helps that the whole work­flow is free (which is su­per im­por­tant to me).

Static sites too can get un­wieldy, just like any CMS to be hon­est, but the level of ab­strac­tion is far, far less com­pared to some­thing like WordPress or Ghost. The con­trol I have is nice to­day, but what hap­pens when I no longer have the time or in­cli­na­tion to main­tain a big pud­dle of APIs and a bunch of mov­ing parts?

I par­tic­u­larly like Ghost and re­cently rec­om­mended it to a friend. It costs ₹/month to run but my headache is pretty much re­duced to back­ups and up­grades, and the odd un­usual fea­ture re­quest which I'd have to write man­u­ally. I don't mind.

Another friend is mov­ing to Ghost (to be fair, from some­thing like Medium) as well even though they are tech­ni­cally com­pe­tent. They'd like to fo­cus on con­tent, not babysit­ting the setup. And I com­pletely get it!

Permalink (includes web­men­tions)

Published: (stale)


kev-ssg-work­flow

Reply

In re­ply to https://​kevq.uk/​sta­tic-site-gen­er­a­tors-re­vis­ited/:

On my sta­tic site, I use Forestry CMS to write ar­ti­cles. There's also Netlify CMS (not af­fil­i­ated to Netlify), but I find Forestry to have a re­mark­ably bet­ter UI/UX. That's my rec­om­men­da­tion. The ini­tial setup can be te­dious, but for a sim­ple blog, it might not be.

Permalink (includes web­men­tions)

Published: (stale)


chai­tanya-per­fec­tion­ism-2

Reply

In re­ply to https://​chai­tanya.page/​2020/​08/​no-one-is-go­ing-to-read-this/:

I strug­gle a lot with this too! I have a bunch of drafts that I don't think will ever get pub­lished any more be­cause they're not good enough. It's been sev­eral months.

Permalink

Published: (stale)