Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.228.24.192

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

Tools to build a static website in 2016

Which ones do you like?

     
6:21 pm on Jul 2, 2016 (gmt 0)

Administrator from CA 

WebmasterWorld Administrator bakedjake is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 8, 2003
posts:3883
votes: 61


In another thread, there was relative agreement amongst the community that static websites still very much have their place these days when you need to build something quick and easy.

One tool I've been using lately to build quick 3-5 page websites that need a light content management system is Lektor: [getlektor.com...]

Lektor is neat because it gives you a lot of the CMS functionality of platforms like WordPress, but the application actually just compiles everything down to static HTML files. It can literally run anywhere. So you get a very fast website, and the templates are easier to work with than WordPress' templating system IMHO. The "CMS" part of Lektor runs on your local computer so you can use it offline as well.
7:41 pm on July 2, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 30, 2002
posts: 2661
votes: 103


Looks good. In the early 2000s I built a CMS for static content using Tcl, bash and template files. The content was drawn from a database but published out as static pages. This Lektor thing is a nice find.

Regards...jmcc
10:45 pm on July 2, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lucy24 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 9, 2011
posts:15889
votes: 876


A few years back, my father was trying to interest me in something called Freeway but I recoiled in horror. (To put it into perspective, this is a man who speaks fluent Fortran; we just have different ideas about websites.)
12:19 am on July 3, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member keyplyr is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 26, 2001
posts:12913
votes: 893


This is a very personal preference IMO. I've never understood CMS thinking. They all seemed to have downsides, bloat and security vulnerabilities however I've not test-driven any in the last couple years. I do continue to see exploit attempts for them in my server logs.

I've built a dozen static sites since the mid 1990's, all using a text editor and the mechanisms available through code standards. Custom scripting and SSI allow me to do what most CMS software promotes, but then I don't know what I don't know :)
7:49 pm on July 4, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3661
votes: 374


I enjoy designing pages from scratch. I created a simple html template years ago and have gradually improved it by converting to html5, responsive design, etc. It's easy to adapt, very fast, no code bloat.
9:39 pm on July 24, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ergophobe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 25, 2002
posts:8639
votes: 283


I guess it depends on your definition of "tool"

- for super simple, I like to grab one of the HTML5UP templates (like you're doing "vagrant up" but just for your HTML5 boilerplate)
[html5up.net...]

- If I will want a lot of the features, I like Foundation or Bootstrap because the broad testing makes them bulltproof. Yes, there might be a lot of bloat but 1) you can create lighter versions easily enough and 2) I'd rather have a bit of bloat than spend weeks of my time trying to get the same effect, but with less reliability. If you're compiling your SASS output minified, the bloat has a tiny effect compared to adding one more image.

- [typesettercms.com...] - haven't tried it, but they advertise "eight times faster than Wordpress" - might be a good choice if you need a light CMS and don't truly want to go static

- also we had a thread about static site generators like Jeckyll and such a while back. Sort of dated now. See the last couple of posts in this thread
[webmasterworld.com...]
12:17 am on July 25, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 31, 2006
posts:1314
votes: 31


Why on earth would you use a CMS just to output a few static HTML pages? Just code them up in an HTML program and upload them and be done with it. My largest site that gets over 1M uniques per month, I still hand code the pages in Dreamweaver (except for the forum section). Lektor does seem different from regular CMS' though.

I've never understood CMS thinking. They all seemed to have downsides, bloat and security vulnerabilities ...

+1
12:43 am on July 31, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 15, 2003
posts:2412
votes: 5


My personal favorite is a text editor.
notepad, anyone?
12:40 am on Aug 1, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ergophobe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 25, 2002
posts:8639
votes: 283


I've never understood CMS thinking.


I think CMS were developed for a number of use cases
- complex editorial flow
- asset management
- defined permissions - for example, limiting exactly which parts of a page end users can edit
- non-technical users who need WYSIWYG and drag and drop image upload and so forth
- dynamic presentation of structured data
- etc

Why someone would use Wordpress for a one-page website (and why one-page Wordpress themes even exist) is another question. And there are many cases where a CMS is just a bloated security hole that offers few advantages.

But there are many, many cases where a CMS is going to offer substantial advantages.