Re: [Chicken-users] Homepage design proposal

[Peter Bex]

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.

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?

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature