# Static web site generators **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [March 7, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272 "2009-03-07T23:20:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/c89c15/32.png) [@zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/zakifataya)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272/1 "2009-03-07T23:20:33Z")
After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites. Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them? ---
**Author:** ![zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/c89c15/32.png) [@zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/zakifataya)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272/2 "2009-03-07T23:29:20Z")
Brian A. wrote: > After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be > the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites. > > Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them? I’ll jump right up and say that there cannot be enough praise for Webby. I use it for a great many sites, including a number I’ve designed professionally, and all my personal sites. It’s wonderfully designed, easy to use, with a lively and helpful discussion list, and Tim P., the developer, couldn’t be a more helpful fellow. You might wanna give it a whirl. If you do, make free use of the discussion list, to help you move things along fast, but you may not need it at all. t. – ```auto Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226 << removed_email_address@domain.invalid >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website) << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog) ``` ---
**Author:** ![zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/c89c15/32.png) [@zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/zakifataya)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272/3 "2009-03-07T23:30:31Z")
On Mar 7, 5:18 pm, Brian A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be > the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites. > > Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them? There certainly nothing wrong with static site generation --in some ways static sites are better. And those are all good tools and there are others as well. But, I always find myself moving to a dynamic site in the end. It’s just a hell of a lot more convenient. I would be cool if some of these static site generators had a cache and generate on demand mode. T. ---
**Author:** ![zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/c89c15/32.png) [@zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/zakifataya)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272/4 "2009-03-08T00:25:30Z")
trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: > On Mar 7, 5:18 pm, Brian A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be > > the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites. > > > > Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them? > > There certainly nothing wrong with static site generation --in some > ways static sites are better. And those are all good tools and there > are others as well. But, I always find myself moving to a dynamic site > in the end. It’s just a hell of a lot more convenient. For sites that have a reasonable chance of becoming dynamic, I probably would just start out that way, but the memory requirements for mongrel are quite heavy and I don’t think passenger or other options have reduced it _that_ much, so for some simple sites, I just want to avoid copy/paste or server side includes. Also, I think I might find them useful for generating other files. ---
**Author:** ![zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/c89c15/32.png) [@zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/zakifataya)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272/5 "2009-03-08T00:54:14Z")
I did a similar survey a few months ago and went with nanoc because the documentation was good. I’m very happy with it and it’s easily the most productive static site development tool ive encountered. Make sure you have a firefox with the web developer tools installed. Peter B. (917) 445 5663 removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/c89c15/32.png) [@zakifataya](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/zakifataya)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/static-web-site-generators/162272/6 "2009-03-08T04:41:07Z")
Brian A. wrote: > After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to be > the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites. > > Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them? I’ve been happy with webby.