blog: manage static websites with visual studio

[nikos]

here's the comment area for today's blog post found at
http://zabkat.com/blog/static-website-w ... mpiler.htm
is it sunday yet?

[Tuxman]

Sounds like something you actually should not do. Not every abomination is a worthy achievement. But I love how this discussion has an entirely different headline (topic) than its related blog article. Should we talk about "managing static websites with visual studio" or about "managing static website content with C preprocessor" here?

Rather unrelated side note: Instead of staticgen.com, I can totally recommend staticsitegenerators.net. staticgen.com only allows GitHub-hosted software and GitHub is a royal pain in the bourgeois ass. Mine, for example, is hosted elsewhere because GitHub is an arrogant, misandric bunch of people with whom I really don't want to have anything to do.

[nikos]

I know I know, it's all about taste... logic and arguments are for poofters

[Kilmatead]

...misandric bunch of people with whom I really don't want to have anything to do.

Out of 360 million people who speak English as their first language, you (who don't) just managed to write a sentence which 99% of them would have grammatically failed to do correctly. This sort of behaviour is really rather creepy, you know?

...logic and arguments are for poofters

And at the other end of the spectrum, the culture who gave us the etymology for the glorious word callipygian (which deserves far wider usage than it gets) has been reduced to using "poofters" in the colloquial. This is rather creepy as well, but for completely different reasons.

One of you is without a doubt sounding the death-knell for the rest of us, but it's curiously difficult to know which one...?

On topic though, for non-VS users, the GCC/LLVM world would use the -E switch to parse out the preprocessor. Just sayin'.

[Tuxman]

This sort of behaviour is really rather creepy, you know?

Happy early Halloween!

[Kilmatead]

Indeed. I should also mention that there's no need to compound the insults given to GitHub, as the name speaks for itself, whether or not the ever-coprolalic Linus Torvalds was aware of that when he applied the nomenclature. Spending some time trying to determine any real connexion between a Git (in the English sense) and a Hub-of-Gits, that Wikipedia entry at least provided what is probably the single best sentence I've read all year...

Typically a good-natured admonition with a strong implication of familiarity, git is more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wanker, arsehole or twat when offence is intended.

It's curious how this single sentiment of semantics encapsulates approximately 90% of my daily human linguistic interaction. Ah, the joys of living in a slightly-less-than-civilised country. An ivory tower, this is not.

[nikos]

where does tit stand in the scale of british insults?

anyway, back on topic, I have effortlessly run the website for 18 years with little more than a text editor, so clearly there's no need for CMS or static website generators. I wrote this article because people all of a sudden rage about programs like Hugo just like as if they rediscovered sliced bread. It's not such a big deal!

[Tuxman]

Your solution pretty much is a static site generator. If anything, you have just proven to be a hipster. Grew a scarf already?

(Heh, tits. The birds, that is.)