1. 11
  1.  

  2. 2

    admittedly partly due to the way I tried to misuse it

    Curious to what the author means by this. Mostly because I have done some hacking with Gatsby myself and have definitely been down some rabbit holes. I wound up sticking with it though because of the customizeability of the platform is great for personal use.

    1. 1

      AsciiDoc does look impressive. One of these days I’m gonna migrate my notes from Markdown.

      I do plan to add support for it in my static site generator written in Haskell. There is no fully-featured Haskell parser for AsciiDoc, so I’d have to shell out to asciidoctor.

      1. 2

        AsciiDoc is really underrated. The syntax is more friendly than MarkDown and RST, the language is way more powerful and can scale up to whole books.

        1. 2

          There is no fully-featured Haskell parser for AsciiDoc, so I’d have to shell out to asciidoctor.

          I’ve been thinking of using AsciiDoc myself, but this fact worries me. It seems like the language is so complex that nobody has bothered to make complete implementations besides the primary one, except for the one time the original asciidoc in python was recreated in ruby as asciidoctor. But that just led to the original being deprecated.

          Cryogen uses AsciiDoctorJ to render its asciidoc content. This looks like a separate Java implementation of AsciiDoctor, but I believe it just uses jruby to call the ruby asciidoctor.

          I’m leaning towards CommonMark myself for this reason, even though Asciidoc remains interesting because of its much richer feature set.

          1. 2

            This. Beside only having a single implementation, there are many weird interactions between various types of the text in a document. For example, we were stumbling into cases where we would lose syntax highlighting of the source code if we use replacements.

        2. 1

          I wonder if the author hav considered Hugo and what is the pros/cons vs Cryogen + AsciiDoctor