At a minimum, static site generators create indexes, table-of-contents, tags, sorts by date, and other such features.
Pretty much no one writes good, raw, HTML these days. Documentation is written Sphinx, texinfo, docbook, and many other formats. Why? Because compiling chapters (or pages) together through static analysis is a very useful pattern for writing.
HTML is just an output pattern. Your actual words should be in a document generator at a minimum.
[1]: https://notpushk.in/
Nope. Anything I can have a machine generate for me is fancy if I have to write it by hand.
Hard disagree. As I said above and you ignored it (no clue why): I want to have a history of my static website.
> In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all.
I can and I don't want to. Markdown is tons easier, you write out an article, execute one command, push the updated HTML+CSS files to GIT and you're done. If we're talking about simplicity let's not ignore that scenario because it really is quite simple.
I got a backlog of 30 things to work on and 500+ to check out "one day when I have the time". Going back to hand-crafting HTML is likely at spot #1784 in my brain. It's a meaningless paperwork that can and must be outsourced to computers.
For a multi-user environment where a dozen people could be accessing the same file at any given time, yeah some sort of version control system will probably make everyone's life easier.
For a single user environment as is likely the case for most static websites? Yeah, it's just needless complexity.
In fact, you lost me at "static site generator". WTF? Just write the damn HTML and CSS yourself, it's static after all.
This isn't to say your way isn't wrong /for you/, of course. Whatever floats your boat. For me, it's all just unnecessary complexity that will invite in all sorts of gremlins to waste my time.