The eternal struggle between simplicity and functionality has sparked fresh debate in the developer community. A recent discussion centers on whether to build custom static site generators or embrace the complexity of existing tools like Emacs Org-mode for blogging workflows.
The conversation began when a developer expressed frustration with Org-mode's publishing system, describing it as a black box of over 20,000 lines of code that's difficult to understand or modify. This sentiment resonates with many who feel torn between the appeal of a simple, custom solution and the powerful features of established tools.
Org-mode Publishing System Complexity:
- HTML exporting code (ox-html.el): 5,000 lines
- General exporting framework (ox-publish.el and ox.el): 8,000 lines
- Org parsing code (org-element.el): 9,000+ lines
- Total complexity: 20,000+ lines of code
The Appeal of Custom Solutions
Many developers are drawn to the idea of building their own static site generators. The promise is enticing: a clean, understandable codebase of just 2,000 lines that you can fully control and extend. Several community members have taken this path successfully, with one developer sharing their experience of spending a focused weekend creating a custom generator that became their most cherished project.
The benefits are clear. Custom solutions offer complete transparency, easier debugging, and the satisfaction of understanding every component. When something breaks, you know exactly where to look and how to fix it.
The Power of Advanced Features
However, the discussion reveals why many stick with complex tools despite their drawbacks. Org-mode's Babel feature stands out as a game-changer for technical writing. This system can execute code blocks during export, display results as tables or images, maintain sessions across code blocks, and handle multiple programming languages seamlessly.
For bloggers who frequently include data visualizations, charts, or live code examples, this functionality is invaluable. The ability to draft data, illustrations, and text simultaneously while keeping everything synchronized makes the complexity worthwhile for many users.
Alternative Approaches Emerge
The community discussion highlighted several middle-ground solutions. Some developers use hybrid approaches like ox-hugo, which converts Org-mode files to Markdown for processing by Hugo. Others have adopted tools like Quarto, which offers similar code execution capabilities with potentially less complexity.
A simple 2,000 line blogging engine would be a fun weekend project. Mirroring the features of Babel I use would turn it into a multi-month endeavor.
Popular Static Site Generator Alternatives Mentioned:
- Custom solutions: ~2,000 lines of code
- Hugo: With ox-hugo converter for Org-mode support
- Pelican: Python-based with Org-mode plugins available
- Zola: Binary distribution, fast rendering
- Quarto: Offers code execution features similar to Babel
- Jekyll, Astro: Other alternatives mentioned by community
The Time Investment Reality
The debate ultimately comes down to time allocation and priorities. Building a custom generator might take a weekend, but replicating advanced features like code execution, syntax highlighting, and multi-language support could require months of development. For developers with limited time, the trade-off often favors existing solutions despite their complexity.
The discussion also touched on simpler alternatives, with some suggesting that plain text files served directly might be sufficient for basic blogging needs, harking back to the simplicity of early web publishing.
This ongoing debate reflects a broader tension in software development between the desire for simplicity and the need for powerful features. While there's no universal answer, the community's diverse approaches show that both paths can lead to successful outcomes, depending on individual needs and constraints.
Reference: Why I Keep Blogging With Emacs