1.8 KiB
title | date | draft | tags | math | medium_enabled |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Re: Static+, can it work? | 2024-07-01T21:59:26-07:00 | false | false | false |
Gabriel recently released a blog post thinking about the space between a static website and a full-blown CMS.
It's something that I think about semi-often. It's difficult to characterize what static+
means, because I believe we each have our reasons for using a static site generator. This includes but is not limited to speed, security, and my personal reason of data portability.
I like how my Hugo website is written in Markdown files. This means that if Hugo stopped development now, I can move to a different static site generator in the future.
With this in mind, what does static+
mean for me? For data portability, this means that if I want an API to create a blog post ideally it'll:
- Write the contents of the blog post in the API request to a Markdown file
- Commit it to my git repository
- Re-run
hugo
to build the site
I enjoy my writing workflow on my computer, so the idea is crafting some easy way to compose posts on my phone.
Hugo maintains a list of frontends which I haven't vetted but may actually satisfy those requirements. Perhaps it's time and energy that's preventing me from Jamstack'n my website.
Or it could be simplicity that makes me want a simpler solution like a custom API that Gabriel describes.
Or I want a reason to tinker with a custom API :)