Post 3463377 by uniporn@toot.kif.rocks
(DIR) More posts by uniporn@toot.kif.rocks
(DIR) Post #3435953 by uwehermann@fosstodon.org
2019-01-27T14:25:36Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
Random statistics: my new #hugo website (deployed #html + #css files) is ca. 1.2MB in size (without images).The old #drupal site was ca. 130MB in size (without images) plus 8.5MB in SQL dump.Same user-visible content in both sites.
(DIR) Post #3463370 by Ertain@mast.linuxgamecast.com
2019-01-27T16:23:48Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@uwehermann Good on you for making a smaller site. While websites have been made more functional over the past 10 years, they have also dramatically increased in size.
(DIR) Post #3463377 by uniporn@toot.kif.rocks
2019-01-27T22:26:42Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@uwehermann this is super interesting to me as I plan on giving a talk next semester about SSGs and why to prefer them. So thanks for sharing!
(DIR) Post #3463389 by lord@pleroma.lord.re
2019-01-28T08:23:17.890400Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uwehermannAnd how long did it take to generate all this.
(DIR) Post #3463390 by uwehermann@fosstodon.org
2019-01-28T11:09:33Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@lord #hugo claims to be the fastest static site generator, which could be true. Granted, my generated site is relatively small (70 #html pages, 30 #rss feeds, 1 sitemap, 1 #css file).A "hugo" run (including "minification" of HTML/CSS) generates those in 70ms or so on my box.If you meant how fast you can write content, it's at least as fast as any CMS I'd say, you just write #markdown in any text-editor.
(DIR) Post #3463504 by noorul@s.noorul.xyz
2019-01-28T11:29:01.295929Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I particularly in process towards setting up own static site rather simply using social network or media sharing platform (Pleroma, Pixfed)My question is whether will I have any advantage using a generator instead coding?I work on #HTML 5, #CSS 3 , Atom feed, so didn't work to use a generator but wonder should I use ?@uwehermann