That is my point.
If it is a given that Runtime A is going to be involved, and your angle is to tout the benefit of binary B being to let you to eliminate Runtime C, why even settle for now needing to rely on B? Why wouldn't you try to avoid it as well? Just use A.
From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646>:
> [There is] a "packager" for putting together add-ons. It uses "node.js". All it really does is apply "zip" to some files. I tried to install the "packager" on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. It had several hundred dependencies, and wouldn't run because of some version dependency in node.js for something totally irrelevant to the task at hand
From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839>:
> If folks were really committed to improving the developer experience, [...] development would work like this: ¶1. Download the project source tree ¶2. Open README.html ¶3. Drag and drop the project source onto README.html
See also: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936>
> If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more?
You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to.
That's a correct reading of my comment. To take that to mean, though, that you should start "writing HTML directly" is a logical leap—and one that happens to turn out to be wrong; it's not something I wrote, and it's not even something I implied. It's an incorrect reading of my comment.
> I would assume it's the reading everyone made
Even after what just happened, you're still making assumptions?
> We all read in good faith
That's disputable. Actual observed behavior on HN lately seems to trend towards the easiest/shortest path to dismissal, or: How can I reaffirm that someone I want to disagree with is dumber than I am?, again à la Twitter.
> phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous
Okay, I'll bite. How should it have been phrased? By the time you had written the comment prior to your most recent one, I had already posted two other comments that were pretty damn specific, one of them excruciatingly so:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839>
What you're demanding is to spend an inordinate amount of effort seemingly to optimize for folks who are some combination of (a) subject to guardrails on their thoughts but silent about it, (b) themselves unwilling to put two seconds' consideration into an idea posted on a site explicitly meant for curious discussion, and/or (c) possibly deliberately uncharitable/hostile. <https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...>
Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome for generating ones site from .md over the thread-starting rust binary? If so, for what reason?
In the second comment you suggest "listing transformations" "and then have a machine perform those steps". We must have different views on "damn specific".
I'm not demanding anything. You posted something that was immediately downvoted, and asked why, and I spent time outlining a possible explanation. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, but another perspective rarely hurts.
You do you, we all strive to be understood.
No. A download-this-extension step wouldn't be much different than a download-this-single-binary step. I am specifically talking about eliminating inessential bits and bobs from the pipeline.
> We must have different views on "damn specific".
Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying?
Ignoring that issue, I don't know what's unclear about dedicating a page example.com/colophon to work as a substitute for your static site generator binary. When you want to update example.com, you visit its /colophon, you let it ingest the directory containing your markdown sources and templates and other assets for processing—same as with any static site generator—and the result is a a bunch of post-processed files comprising your site's static resources—again: same as any other static site generator produces.
If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about.
Ok, let's get down to brass tacks.
The post you originally responded to was:
> Oh interesting, that's a Rust-based SSG. Definitely something nice about a single binary and not needing a full language runtime installed.
That's someone stating that it's nice not needing anything outside of a rust binary, some reading, and of course, as you state, a browser for reading the resulting site.
You then responded with, verbatim:
> Well, one program to generate the site, and then an implicit assumption that you'll use another program (your Web browser) at some point to verify the output.
> If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more?
You are suggesting cutting out one more. For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Is there a product or project you can recommend?
> If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about.
You can either blame everyone else for not getting you, or imagine a scenario where your thoughts to you make complete sense, but when translating that to writing, some steps are ignored and you're being downvoted because the suggestions either doesn't contribute anything (as it's written, which is the correct reason to downvote something), or sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted).
You're arguing with me to change something about my interpretation, despite me having spent likely 10 times more effort on it than any other person on here did with your comment.
But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it. I have no power over how you communicate. I have tried making myself very clear many times over, and I assume you have too. But obviously we're not understanding eachother.
Good luck in all your future endeavours. You win whatever it is you wanted to win.
Neither one of these claims are true. You're again ignoring the context on record.
You yourself stated, "You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to", and the general tone is implying that being this explicit for something so obvious is superfluous (and I'd agree). Even so, there's my reply in the affirmative. So the combo of so-obvious-it-doesn't-need-to-be-stated + having it stated anyway is working against you here on the claim that I never clearly described which to cut out.
As for the second part, I assert that putting up a /colophon page that can function "as a substitute for your static site generator binary" similar to the hypothetical README.html that I mention in comment 28407936 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936> in fact _very_ straightforwardly addresses the "what to replace it with" issue.
> Is there a product or project you can recommend?
That's a subtle change in criteria. Many people are not content to use anything except a homegrown static site generator, and my original reply was only supposed to refer to the concept of using the runtime that you already get for free in your browser to cut out the need for either a separate runtime ("full language" runtime, in their words) or a separate binary that needs to be installed and maintained out-of-band. It was not supposed to be a recommendation of a specific project, nor does the context demand it.
> sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted)
That's a new claim original to this comment only—again, changing context—and in any case is another bad reading.
> But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it
I don't think you're too stupid to get it; I think you're just committed to not understanding, or that you're possibly feigning a lack of understanding well past the point where you really do understand, e.g. because your real commitment is to the issue of whether I have communicated clearly—and a sudden realization on your part (esp. of something that _was_, on a second reading, adequately conveyed but earlier missed) would conflict with that commitment.
No, I truly still don't understand what you were or are suggesting.
Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static?
If you don't want what you apparently consider an uncharitable interpretation the easiest way is to provide more room for another.
Please ask someone in your life to read this exchange and give an outside perspective on it. It might be eye opening. Or you'll have confirmation that I'm just winding you up, or whatever it is I'm doing.
What? No. Geez. The /colophon page itself, as stated, already contains the "transformations that need to be applied to produce the desired output".
Aside from that page, there is nothing except the runtime baked in to the browser that you are already using. That content lives as a file inside the source repo of the site you're trying to publish—and y'know what, even though I suggested making it accessible from /colophon in the final product, in fact, that doesn't even matter! You could have it be called README.html in the source repo for all it matters, just like I already mentioned.
There is no need for a separately installed "full language runtime". There is no separate binary instead, whether self-contained or not. There is no separate browser extension. There is no separate haha-here's-an-application-server-so-it's-not-actually-a-static-site-after-all. There is no need for any of those things. Why do you continue throwing even more of these types of questions my way when every previous one has already been struck down by an answer in the negative (and a "yes" to any of them would contradict the very premise)? I strongly suggest you go through your exercise of having someone else read through this, because this is exasperatingly repetitive in a way that is not my fault.