I would definitely use this in production if it was smart enough to see a directory with nothing but .mp3/.jpg files, and produce a playlist/gallery with the files embedded .. seems like an obvious feature, but even with Hugo this doesn’t seem to be a simple deal.
This seems very nice. In fact, I will adopt some aspects of Ivy into athena. I wonder, though, about two things. One, why the author relies on Python’s Markdown package (which is very minimal and quirky) and not on, say, Pandoc. Two, Ivy claims “it’s [. . .] suited to building project documentation” – I wonder how it’d go about building a blog (since its YAML values seem to support it.)
Hugo, Jekyll, Ivy. I’d like to give it a try as I find Hugo a bit of a pain moving from Jekyll. Honestly, the whole minimalist shtick is appealing regardless of how haphazardly the word is thrown about.
What problems did you see with Jekyll and Hugo?
I think, after further reading on Ivy (it’s not meant all that much for blogs), that Hugo and Jekyll are a hodgepodge of assorted features that can lead to bloat. Granted, baseline both are easy enough to get started with. I use both right now for hosted sites. I just really agree – after playing around with Ivy – that Hugo and Jekyll really aren’t meant just for plain static sites. They’re meant for more complex sites (e.g., blogs mostly). That’s fine. Ivy does a great job of doing what it says it wants to do.