Looks good. In the early 2000s I built a CMS for static content using Tcl, bash and template files. The content was drawn from a database but published out as static pages. This Lektor thing is a nice find.

Regards...jmcc

A few years back, my father was trying to interest me in something called Freeway but I recoiled in horror. (To put it into perspective, this is a man who speaks fluent Fortran; we just have different ideas about websites.)

This is a very personal preference IMO. I've never understood CMS thinking. They all seemed to have downsides, bloat and security vulnerabilities however I've not test-driven any in the last couple years. I do continue to see exploit attempts for them in my server logs.

I've built a dozen static sites since the mid 1990's, all using a text editor and the mechanisms available through code standards. Custom scripting and SSI allow me to do what most CMS software promotes, but then I don't know what I don't know :)

I enjoy designing pages from scratch. I created a simple html template years ago and have gradually improved it by converting to html5, responsive design, etc. It's easy to adapt, very fast, no code bloat.

I guess it depends on your definition of "tool"

- for super simple, I like to grab one of the HTML5UP templates (like you're doing "vagrant up" but just for your HTML5 boilerplate)
[html5up.net...]

- If I will want a lot of the features, I like Foundation or Bootstrap because the broad testing makes them bulltproof. Yes, there might be a lot of bloat but 1) you can create lighter versions easily enough and 2) I'd rather have a bit of bloat than spend weeks of my time trying to get the same effect, but with less reliability. If you're compiling your SASS output minified, the bloat has a tiny effect compared to adding one more image.

- [typesettercms.com...] - haven't tried it, but they advertise "eight times faster than Wordpress" - might be a good choice if you need a light CMS and don't truly want to go static

- also we had a thread about static site generators like Jeckyll and such a while back. Sort of dated now. See the last couple of posts in this thread
[webmasterworld.com...]

Why on earth would you use a CMS just to output a few static HTML pages? Just code them up in an HTML program and upload them and be done with it. My largest site that gets over 1M uniques per month, I still hand code the pages in Dreamweaver (except for the forum section). Lektor does seem different from regular CMS' though.

I've never understood CMS thinking. They all seemed to have downsides, bloat and security vulnerabilities ...

+1

My personal favorite is a text editor.
notepad, anyone?

I've never understood CMS thinking.

I think CMS were developed for a number of use cases
- complex editorial flow
- asset management
- defined permissions - for example, limiting exactly which parts of a page end users can edit
- non-technical users who need WYSIWYG and drag and drop image upload and so forth
- dynamic presentation of structured data
- etc

Why someone would use Wordpress for a one-page website (and why one-page Wordpress themes even exist) is another question. And there are many cases where a CMS is just a bloated security hole that offers few advantages.

But there are many, many cases where a CMS is going to offer substantial advantages.