Hacker News Reader

Comment by bacondude3 | Hacker News Reader

All I want is a static site generator that sits in an executable file in my project's directory and doesn't require any dependencies so that I can run `./ssg build` and have all of my Markdown files interpolated into my template files and put in their own directory. I don't want to have to install all of the dependencies for Ruby or Hugo or Blades, cool as this project looks. Are there any SSGs that fill that niche?

(A Python executable would be fine since pretty much every Linux computer has Python, but I don't want to have to deal with pip).

View on HN

That's pretty much what hugo[1] is. Download the .tar.gz and put the executable wherever you want.

[1] https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo

Thanks. I had looked at Hugo before, but I guess I just didn't see the binary install option. (https://gohugo.io/getting-started/installing/#binary-cross-p...)

Do save yourself some head-scratching and time, and download the hugo_extended package.

Check out https://www.getzola.org. It's a single executable. It even does syntax highlighting (without using client-side javascript).

I moved to it from Jekyll/Hugo, because I hate dealing with Ruby and dependencies like you!

Thanks for the suggestion!

Some of the other commenters have pointed out that Hugo also has standalone binaries, I just didn't notice them last time I looked. What made you choose Zola over Hugo?

I think the main reason was the built in syntax highlighting, and simplicity. I've decided to move away from themes, and just code simple CSS by hand - so Zola kind of fits that mindset.

Hugo definitely has more features. If you think you'll want to do some complex hierarchies in your blog/site, or want a lot of themes to pick from I'd go with Hugo.

Hopefully that helps!

Edit: I think Hugo used to require Pygments (a pip package), but it looks like that's no longer the case. If it did that probably nudged me towards Zola too.

I really enjoyed Zola as well. It's sufficiently simple that the learning curve is really gentle but has just enough features to cover all my needs for a static site.

Coupling it with Tailwind for styling meant that developing the theme was really smooth (slowest part of changing a template was waiting for the browser to refresh, i.e. < 1s).

There seems to be apathy in Rust community towards using client-side js for syntax highlighting. Rust documentation and The Rust Book uses it for no good reason. Code in examples doesn't change, and the way they are highlighted doesn't change. In my opinion it clashes with the philosophy of the language - that as much as possible should be done before the code is run.

Aside from my pedantry, it causes computers to make more unnecessary computations and our civilization emits more carbon. It also affects me because I currently have an old CPU and it takes a few seconds for syntax highlighting to kick in. Every time I press "Back" in my browser, syntax highlighting needs to be recalculated as well.

Oh well, on the bright side I have an itch to scratch :-).

> Code in examples doesn't change, and the way they are highlighted doesn't change.

I'd consider it an accessibility issue - hardcoding the syntax highlighting on the backend makes it more difficult for people to change using accessibility tools. Whereas with js-based highlighting, you can probably just change the theme and get readable output.

If you used semantic class names you could change the theme with just css.

What kind of accessibility tools are you thinking of that would work with JS highlighting, but not server-generated? (Given that generally both would produce roughly the same in-browser DOM, which is what most modern accessibility tools work against)

You seem to be describing accessibility tools for completely blind users, and I think they were describing accessibility tools for users with other sorts of disabilities. For example, someone who uses a custom stylesheet or a browser extension to make the page have higher contrast.

No, the question applies to those just as much.

As far as I know, parsing the accessibility tree is primarily limited to screen readers / brail displays. Am I missing something?

I'm speaking of the normal DOM representation of the HTML in the page. A server-side highlighter generates HTML with css classes or styling attached that gets turned into a DOM by the browser. A JS-based highlighter edits the DOM by adding css classes or attaching styling. The in-browser representation of the end result, which a browser extension likely works with, can be the same, and how it looks like exactly is more important for their functionality than if the server or JS did it.

> that would work with JS highlighting, but not server-generated?

Mainly that JS highlighting normally works with a theme variable which is much easier to change to get, e.g., a high-contrast theme than having to muck about with 10-20 different CSS styles.

Ignoring that option, working with a known set of CSS styles in the DOM is going to be easier than dealing with John Q Random's own particular set for highlighting (assuming they haven't used the same as a popular JS highlighter, of course!)

(To my shame, whatever Hugo is now using for syntax highlighting makes an awful mess - everything is "style:color#123456", no semantic information - I'll be fixing that ASAP.)

apathy - neutral / "don't care"

antipathy - negative / "hatred"

While another word or phrase would be preferable there, the GP did in fact use the word correctly.

They are claiming that the rust team uses client side JS because they don't care about the negative implications of doing so.

Hugo or any go program should fit that bill since that is one of the major selling points of go

Hugo has a ton of prebuilt executables that you just have to extract and its in a single file https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/releases

Thanks. I had looked at Hugo before, but somehow didn't see the precompiled binary as an installation option. I'll try it out.

You don't need to use their precompiled binary either. It's available in brew (OS X), some Windows package manager (don't remember the name), distro packages, etc.

Yeah, but package managers are exactly what I want to avoid here :)

I'm not sure why Ruby (dependencies at run time) and Go and Rust (dependencies at compile time) are both lumped together as examples of what you aren't looking for.

Doesn't go or rust give you a static executable?

It looks like Hugo does provide a static executable. I'm aware that Go is known for providing standalone binaries, but last time I checked Hugo's website I didn't notice the binary installation method [0], which is why I mentioned it as equivalent with Jekyll. I'll give it another look.

Regarding Ruby, Gems on Linux is a mess that I don't want to have to deal with for anything, but especially not for a static site generator.

Rust probably could provide a precompiled binary, but the recommended installation method for Blades involves `cargo` which is why I asked the question.

https://gohugo.io/getting-started/installing/#binary-cross-p...

> Rust probably could provide a precompiled binary, but the recommended installation method for Blades involves `cargo` which is why I asked the question.

Cargo is the Rust compiler (or rather the Rust build system). After you run it, it'll spit out a binary which you can use elsewhere. If I'm reading your question correctly, this would be analogous to seeing a reference to CMake in a C++ project's README and then asking whether C++ supports precompiled binaries.

Both Go and Rust do not produce static binaries by default -- they both link to glibc and a few other libraries -- but you can coerce them both to do so (though with Rust it's slightly more painful because you need to install a compiler toolchain that uses musl, but rustup makes it pretty painless).

By static I meant go and rust dependencies bundled into the executable. Dynamically linking to libc is ok with me, any system I run on has a usable libc.

Though it should be noted that when you compile such a binary on a system with a newer glibc, it will not work on a system with an older glibc. To be fair this is basically the case with C as well (you can work around it with .symver but it's kind of dodgy), but it is worth keeping in mind.

Yes, this is true for a great many things. If I compile these pseudo-static binaries for use on multiple different linux distributions or libc versions, I compile on the oldest/lowest common denominator so that it runs everywhere I need it to.

If a dependency on Markdown/sh is acceptable, you might find this[0] to be helpful. I wrote it because I was in much the same boat.

[0] https://git.sr.ht/~evan-hoose/SSSSS

[1] http://a-shared-404.com/blog/stupid-simple-sites/

That looks a tad more basic than what I'd like, but I'll give it a try. Thanks for the links!

It is indeed quite basic. You should be able to replace 'markdown' with whatever renderer you want, so theoretically any sort of plaintext -> html tool should work. Alternately, if there's a more full featured markdown renderer you prefer that should work ootb.

They say "If you would like to have it included in your favourite package repository, submit an issue."

I don't know much about Rust. Can it be compiled into a standalone binary? C programs typically rely on header files and are not standalone, and Rust is (basically) C but with safeguards around memory, right?

Yes it can when you use musl instead of glibc

Thanks! Where can I read more about that? I looked at musl's website, but didn't see any mention of standalone binaries on the page comparing it to glibc. [0]

[0]: https://wiki.musl-libc.org/functional-differences-from-glibc...

This page mentions it: https://www.musl-libc.org/intro.html

This is more of a Rust quirk[1] than a glibc/musl thing. Glibc can be used statically (though it's not really recommended -- hence why Rust doesn't support it and requires you to use musl instead).

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2018/platform-a...

You can do exactly this with Blades. The binary has no dependencies.

Where do you download the binary from?

You could download it from AUR: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/blades-bin/

Or simply from GitHub releases: https://github.com/grego/blades/releases

what about this?: https://rgz.ee/bin/ssg5 modify it a little bit and run!

That still has an external dependency for Markdown, but yeah, that's basically exactly what I'm looking for. I might just stick Markdown.pl in the git directory with the shell file so that dependencies aren't a problem.

Thanks!

Documentation here: https://rgz.ee/ssg.html

if you like extreme minimalism : https://dataswamp.org/~solene/2019-08-26-minimal-markdown.ht...

unfortunately i don't see any license for that awk script, but still, just look at it!

This is a really weird requirement from my perspective...

Deal with a Jekyll site that sat unattended for two years and was built using the default Ubuntu ruby packages and you'll understand.

Yeah I don't use Jekyll (I use Hugo, although have been looking for a rust option that has a smaller binary), and I rebuild my static site often enough.

But a Python venv and a requirements lockfile can alleviate a lot of the issues you seemed to have.

Seems like placing the generator directly in the repo is a little bit of an overreaction. Maybe it is all you have time/patience for, but I would not consider it a clean practice. (E.g. it would break when you switch CPU architectures, which I have done since I started my site).

I hadn't thought of CPU architecture problems since all of my computers in the past decade or so have used the same architecture, but that's a good point.

I understand sticking the generator in the repo isn't a good practice, but I really just want a simple setup that won't have dependency problems. Probably an executable shell or Python file that doesn't draw in any dependencies would be ideal for me since those can run on pretty much any Linux computer in my experience.

Based off the recommendations here, I'll likely migrate my Jekyll site to Hugo or this one which was recommended by another commenter in the thread: https://rgz.ee/ssg.html

Right now, do you just keep Hugo in your `$PATH`? If you do that, do you need to note in your site's README which version of Hugo it should be built with, or are Hugo versions pretty backwards-compatible with each other?

Hugo is packaged in my distro and I just roll with the updates. Never had an issue before, but it has only been a year so maybe that is not representative of long term usage.

Sounds very reasonable. Some Python/Ruby/JS static site generators come with dozens of dependencies...

Dependencies which can be tracked and locked!

Indeed. Use a static generator properly packaged in a Linux distribution and you'll have reliability and security updates.

Use a self-contined binaries from random sources and goodbye security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com