You mention that Hakyll is inspired by yst, nanoc, and Jekyll. Can you talk about what you chose to do differently and why? And then maybe a little about the things you think those projects do right.
Hakyll 3 is mostly inspired by nanoc. The key differences between nanoc and Hakyll are:
* type-safety of Haskell prevents you from doing I/O where this could be dangerous;
* while nanoc layouts can contain code (erb), Hakyll templates do not support this -- all code needs to go in the Haskell configuration file;
* Hakyll uses pandoc for document reading/conversion, nanoc usually uses kramdown and other ruby libraries;
* Nanoc uses a separate DSL for "routes" and "compilation rules", in Hakyll these are defined in the same DSL;
A more in-depth comparison would indeed by very handy. The author of nanoc lives near me, so I'll see if we can come up with a decent comparison together.
Comments
You mention that Hakyll is inspired by yst, nanoc, and Jekyll. Can you talk about what you chose to do differently and why? And then maybe a little about the things you think those projects do right.
Hakyll 3 is mostly inspired by nanoc. The key differences between nanoc and Hakyll are:
* type-safety of Haskell prevents you from doing I/O where this could be dangerous;
* while nanoc layouts can contain code (erb), Hakyll templates do not support this -- all code needs to go in the Haskell configuration file;
* Hakyll uses pandoc for document reading/conversion, nanoc usually uses kramdown and other ruby libraries;
* Nanoc uses a separate DSL for "routes" and "compilation rules", in Hakyll these are defined in the same DSL;
A more in-depth comparison would indeed by very handy. The author of nanoc lives near me, so I'll see if we can come up with a decent comparison together.
There's a brief comparison with yst here: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/abe3o/hakyll_a_simp...