1. 17
  1.  

  2. 10

    Back when WordPress was released in 2003, the competition was unconvincing.

    One of the competitors was Movable Type, which ironically was a static site generated from templates. WP won in part because it was purely database-backed and could be generated dynamically.

    Markdown was developed in part as a plugin to Movable Type:

    Markdown works with Movable Type version 2.6 or later (including Movable Type 3.0).

    1. 3

      I originally used Movable Type for a punk rock blog, and migrated to WordPress because it was easier and faster to add new content. Movable Type was a Perl application, and required a rebuild on every change. It wasn’t so bad when add a new individual piece of content, as that page would be build and saved. It was with theme development that Movable Type became clunky. A rebuild was required for every change. The rebuild time really wasn’t that long, but it did not lend itself to small quick changes in quick succession. WordPress was nice because a change/save/F5 was all that was needed to see my little tweak.

      Movable Type wasn’t horrible on a rebuild. For new individual content it only rebuilt the content and any tags or category pages needed. Even the full site rebuild had options to limit what was actually rebuilt. If they had made it faster, as fast as Hugo is now, I would have been happier with it and might have stayed away from WordPress.

      1. 1

        Yeah, I started using a hosted MT blog (hi Symbiandiaries!) then migrated to a (dynamically) generated Blosxom install. I’ve since started using Blosxom in static mode.

        Interestingly, MT is still around - https://www.movabletype.com/. I think they pivoted to professional CMS’ a while ago.

        1. 1

          Isn’t it weird how a fork of b2 because the world’s most popular CMS?

          1. 1

            What was B2?

            1. 3

              A PHP based CMS.

              https://b2evolution.net/about/b2evolution-vs-wordpress

              I actually know the creator of the software, I’ll see if he’s interested in commenting.

      2. 2

        Bruce Schneier’s blog uses Movable Type. That’s how I found out about it.

        1. 2

          Way back in the day, so many important/interesting people in the web design and dev world used MT that it still biases my reaction to sites that obviously run MT today, or use a theme based on the old MT default.

          1. 1

            Was moveable type closed source back then?

          2. 5

            What I would really like is a static site generator that had a wordpress-style dynamic interface with a GUI and stuff for creating and editing pages. That way I would feel comfortable making a site that can actually be maintained by other people, without first having to teach them their way around a Linux command line. The hackerspace I help run has a Wordpress site, and I’m not going to ever migrate it away from that because our membership is very fluid and the next people who have to maintain it may well not be as tech-savvy as I am.

            Right now Wordpress fills the same niche as Windows, MS Office, Java, etc: “Yes it kinda sucks, but it works and everyone knows how to use it”.

            1. 4

              Sounds like what you’re looking for is a file-based CMS. There is NetlifyCMS which sounds exactly like what you describe.

              There is also Pico, Grav and Kirby, for example (interestingly, all written in PHP – PHP seems to be the thing for CMS for some reason).

              Check out staticgen.com as well, there might be other options available.

              1. 2

                Would Lektor fit your requirements?

              2. 2

                I described our static site setup in a past comment here:

                https://lobste.rs/s/s91ry0/most_dynamic_static_site_you_ll_ever_see#c_jrzsib

                We still use WordPress for our blog. And I still use WP for my personal blog. But I find for marketing sites, landing pages, technical documentation, and the like, using a simple web app framework and simple templating language (in this case, Flask + Jinja2) is just so much simpler than the alternative would be. And, as that comment described, it became easy to incorporate things like ES5+ code via babel/webpack, minification and source map approaches, test frameworks, and the like. Which is usually pretty tough to do with WP unless you’re a WP developer or PHP expert.

                The performance benefit seems like a red herring to me, though. We run our static site on a simple nginx server, but you could imagine just putting a CDN like Amazon Cloudfront or Fastly in front of your CMS, and you’d get all the same benefits of static generation, but without the annoying build time. To me, the real reason static sites are nice is for developer workflow, not because of end-user performance. (Although it is true it’s easier to keep end-user performance fast when you think in terms of static sites.)

                1. -1
                  1. -1

                    Null comment detected.

                    1. 1

                      1. 2

                        Username checks out :D

                        1. 2

                          Do those comments seem empty to you? On my machine I see: ¥√π¶°€dgt$#_7;d

                          1. 1

                            Yes, they don’t show anything for me. Chrome on Windows:

                            https://www.dropbox.com/s/18k0ujhh87bpy4s/lobsters%20-%202019-05-27%2013-10-13.png?dl=0

                            1. 1

                              I was making a joke about reading from 0x0