[HN Gopher] We rolled our own documentation site
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We rolled our own documentation site
        
       Author : nerdypepper
       Score  : 27 points
       Date   : 2026-01-13 02:49 UTC (20 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (blog.tangled.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (blog.tangled.org)
        
       | WillAdams wrote:
       | For folks not familiar with this project:
       | 
       | >Tangled is a decentralized Git hosting and collaboration
       | platform.
       | 
       | it is _not_ about Literate Programming (which is what I was
       | expecting).
       | 
       | A previous active discussion of this project:
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45543899
        
       | sgtwompwomp wrote:
       | Mintlify is really good. If you're a serious developer tool not
       | sure why you wouldn't use it. For example I went into your docs
       | and I don't see AI chat so I can ask quick, natural language
       | questions. No MCP I can install so Cursor can query. Prob no
       | llms.txt. No quick Copy to Markdown. This stuff is table stakes,
       | if you don't have it and a competitor does, I'm not even
       | considering you guys
       | 
       | It's just a worse developer experience. Fine if you aren't a
       | serious business, but yeah I wouldn't play down the value of
       | Mintlify or similar products. It's seriously good and it's why
       | huge companies use it
        
         | 4k0hz wrote:
         | >I don't see AI chat so I can ask quick, natural language
         | questions. No MCP I can install so Cursor can query. Prob no
         | llms.txt. No quick Copy to Markdown.
         | 
         | It's not the site's job to add those features though. If you
         | want that experience there are ways to get it without adding
         | bloat to every page on the web. Scraping a static site and
         | answering questions/summarizing is a solved problem.
        
           | bognition wrote:
           | It is the sites job to make documentation available to the
           | users, no?
           | 
           | It's so odd for a tech focused crowed to be so opposed to
           | newer technology.
           | 
           | Users are getting used to natural language search, not having
           | it will be perceived as friction.
           | 
           | Users are increasingly turning to agentic coding tools, those
           | tools do best when documentation is available via an MCP
           | server. Not having one will make it harder for people to use
           | your product.
        
             | 4k0hz wrote:
             | I'm not opposed to the idea of natural language search, my
             | point is the tools should be on the user side. Right now, I
             | can ask questions about plain text pages that haven't been
             | updated in 30 years directly in Firefox with no effort from
             | the site operator. If an agent needs to have direct access
             | to documentation, it's trivial for it to download pages
             | autonomously (or even set up its own MCP server). There's
             | literally no reason to demand that millions of sites
             | independently add features that browsers and agents already
             | have better and more uniform versions of.
        
           | add-sub-mul-div wrote:
           | Is it surprising that an AI fanatic wants/needs to be
           | handheld?
        
           | sgtwompwomp wrote:
           | It's not a business's job to make their documentation
           | accessible to their potential and current customers?
           | 
           | I would ask if you've started a real business but it's clear
           | you haven't. It is 100% on a developer tool startup to
           | provide documentation that is easily accessible. If they
           | don't, customers will struggle to get value. If you think
           | this isn't true, then you are ignoring the gigantic market of
           | companies purchasing documentation products (look at
           | Mintlify's customer base for reference)
           | 
           | There is no way I'm asking my customers to scrape my docs and
           | build their own MCP server and AI assistant just to access it
           | easily.
        
       | gkoberger wrote:
       | Congrats on the launch!
       | 
       | I run a documentation product, ReadMe. There's a lot of reasons
       | to roll your own, but I'd recommend you also look into a third-
       | party tool like us. One of the biggest reasons to use a product
       | is that the building v1 is easy, but keeping it up to date over
       | time is a lot tougher... you're stuck remembering how to deploy,
       | figuring out a workflow, dealing with multiple versions, etc.
       | 
       | You also just don't get a ton of really great features for your
       | developers... fast typeahead search, AI tools (which your
       | developers increasingly really want), navigation, accessibility
       | and more. ReadMe also lets your developers play around with you
       | API locally and get copy-and-paste code snippets.
       | 
       | (If you're deciding between your own and ReadMe, email me!
       | greg@readme.io; would love to talk)
        
         | cmoski wrote:
         | All for the low, low price of $350 US per month!
        
           | gkoberger wrote:
           | There's also a free version, and a $79/mo tier. We're also
           | free for open source projects on our higher tiers.
           | 
           | If it's not for you, that's okay! But an increasing number of
           | documentation teams are cross-functional (marketing, sales,
           | engineering, product), and not everyone is comfortable
           | editing content directly in Git and dealing with a release.
           | 
           | Docs are the heart and soul of most devtools, so I think it
           | makes sense a lot of companies want a good product.
        
         | pluralmonad wrote:
         | I didn't find any indication on readme.io. Is it open source?
        
       | gingersnap wrote:
       | Talking about search on a static docs site, has anyone tried a
       | static pre-generated search like https://lunrjs.com/ ?
        
         | jorams wrote:
         | Basically every Elixir package's docs include search based on
         | Lunr, as it's included by default by ExDoc[1]. It's quite good.
         | 
         | [1]: https://hexdocs.pm/ex_doc/
        
         | nicbou wrote:
         | I use Lunr on allaboutberlin.com. It's simple and effective,
         | but searching the whole content would have required loading
         | more files than I was comfortable with. Therefore it only
         | searches titles and descriptions.
         | 
         | There are probably workarounds, but it's the only limitation I
         | can think of. Otherwise Lunr just works.
        
         | butz wrote:
         | I think https://develop.kde.org/docs/ is using lunrjs for
         | search, but downloading and parsing almost 2MB file of search
         | data creates some hiccups on website during load.
        
         | fanf2 wrote:
         | I use https://pagefind.app/ for search on my website. It's
         | really easy to add to a static site.
        
         | victorbjorklund wrote:
         | I been using this project (seems to be abandoned now but still
         | works) https://stork-search.net/
         | 
         | Works great.
        
       | butz wrote:
       | This is great, no javascript. And while I am not a big fan of
       | google search, alternative to open up all docs as single page and
       | use Ctrl+F is neat.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-13 23:00 UTC)