awebsite/content/project/2025-05-15-zola/index.md
2025-05-17 12:11:04 +02:00

48 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

+++
title = "zola - a switch to rust"
date = 2025-05-16
authors = ["Aron Petau", "Friedrich Weber"]
description = "revamping my website, futureproofing"
draft = true
[taxonomies]
tags = [
"rust",
"programming",
"static site generator",
"blogging",
"hosting",
"experiment",
"private",
]
[extra]
show_copyright = true
show_shares = true
featured = false
+++
For years, Jekyll was my go-to for building static websites. It was familiar, widely supported, and part of the broader Ruby ecosystem. But over time, my frustrations grew—slow builds, complicated plugin setups, and a dependency stack that never felt quite right. Recently, I made the leap to **Zola**, a Rust-powered static site generator, and I don't see myself going back.
## Rust Feels Right
Ive always admired Rust for its speed, safety, and modern tooling. Using a static site generator built with Rust just made sense. **Zola is fast**—blazing fast. Even during local development, rebuilds are near-instant, and that alone makes the writing process smoother and more enjoyable.
Plus, using something written in Rust means fewer external dependencies, no bundler hell, and zero Ruby setup headaches. I can just download the binary, run it, and get going. It respects my time.
## Zola Is Thoughtfully Designed
Beyond performance, Zola is simply well-designed. Its template syntax (thanks to Tera) is more powerful and readable than Liquid. The built-in shortcodes, pagination, and asset pipelines all feel cohesive and purposeful. Theres very little “configuration over convention” fatigue that Jekyll often gave me.
And even though both systems are Markdown-based, migrating wasn't just a matter of copy-pasting files. I had to rethink frontmatter, adjust templates, and wrangle image paths and shortcodes. The structure and behavior are different enough that it felt like a real rebuild—not just a port.
## Duckquill Made me switch
The real catalyst, though? **Duckquill**, a stunning Zola theme built by [Daudix](https://github.com/daudix). It struck the perfect balance between minimalism and elegance—exactly the aesthetic I wanted but could never quite achieve with Jekyll. Duckquill didnt just make Zola usable for me; it made it *irresistible*.
What really sets **Duckquill** apart—beyond its clean typography and smart layout—is how well it supports a vision of digital autonomy. The theme comes with **Mastodon-powered comments**, allowing for lightweight, federated interaction without relying on big centralized platforms. This fits perfectly with my goal of reclaiming control through **self-hosting**. Whether it's running my own site, owning my content, or interacting through the fediverse, Duckquill reinforces those values rather than working against them. Its a rare example of design and infrastructure aligning with personal principles.
## Final Thoughts
Switching from Jekyll to Zola wasnt effortless, but it was absolutely worth it. I now have a faster, more reliable, and better-looking site thats easier to maintain and feels like it fits my tooling philosophy.
If you're feeling the weight of your current setup, maybe it's time to try Zola—and give Duckquill a spin while you're at it.