In particular websites which are only part blog.
In particular websites which are only part blog.
I don't think you want Pelican or Jekyll in this case. Their emphasis is definitely on blogging and you'll have to fight them some if you move away from that niche.
How does Hugo compare to Hakyll?
That said, Haskell is also _incredibly awesome_ and especially well suited to static site generation. Plus Pandoc is possibly the best format conversion tool out there. But I would only use if if you either already know Haskell or are curious and will enjoy playing around and learning new things.
So I switched to ghost and I'm fairly happy for now. The downside of this is that I have to pay ~$4 a month for a shared hosting, which is fine by me.
In general: What would be the best approach towards having a part of the website static (main part), and only the blog/press part being regenerated?
Does Hugo/Pelican/Jekyll/Hakyll etc handle this kind of functionality?
As an alternative, what would be a good light weight CMS these days (ideally in Python)?
I find those factors tend to trump smaller shortcomings. There’s always going to be some stuff, but being able to ask a question and get an answer is very important. Take that from someone who did his first static blog in Blogofile …
Windows support has been non-existent, which is obviously huge to some, but Jekyll 3 aims to remedy that. I haven’t played around with Jekyll 3 on Windows, though, so you only have their word for it. Ruby on Windows is already … interesting.
I run a site with resources for static site generators, The New Dynamic, and you can find a lot of articles on those and others there: http://www.thenewdynamic.org/
Portfolio: http://www.thejeremywhite.com/
Source: https://github.com/iheart2code/iheart2code.github.io
I host my own blog on Jekyll and that works awesomely well and I have no plans for needing a backend server. If I was a startup and wanted to add small marketing features (email collection, surveys, etc.) then I would consider moving off of it.
And yet, I can totally see why it makes sense to pay, since handling yet another service that you must keep up is just annoying and time-consuming.
I don't mean to pimp, but we really would love more testing and would send you an invitation right away. Plus, the free thing.
I find that Harp and Surge get in the way the least, thanks to "convention over configuration". Just give me my Jade & Stylus, thank you very much.
I'd be interested in hearing how others use Harp with current tooling - React / CSS modules / JSPM anyone?
Still, it's nice that jekyll doesn't require much work to deploy to github.