Choosing a blogging platform.

Sass (short for Syntactically Awesome Style Sheets) is a preprocessor scripting language that extends CSS (Cascading Style Sheets). Sass allows developers to use variables, nested rules, mixins, and functions, making it easier to write and maintain complex CSS code. Sass code needs to be compiled into standard CSS before it can be used by web browsers.

Sass compilation refers to the process of converting Sass code into CSS. This is typically done using a build tool or task runner, such as Gulp, Grunt, or Webpack. However, some static site generators, like Zola, offer built-in Sass compilation, meaning you don't need to set up a separate build tool or process for it. This can make it more convenient to work with Sass when building a website or a blog, as the compilation step is handled automatically by the static site generator.

Using Sass can be beneficial for your project depending on your requirements and familiarity with CSS. Here are some reasons to consider using Sass:

1. Maintainability: Sass allows you to use variables, which can make it easier to manage and maintain your stylesheets. For example, you can define colors, font sizes, and other frequently used properties as variables and reuse them throughout your styles.

2. Modularization: You can split your Sass code into multiple files and use the `@import` directive to include them in the main stylesheet. This can help you organize your code better and promote modular design.

3. Nested syntax: Sass enables you to nest selectors within one another, which can make your code more readable and easier to maintain by closely mimicking the structure of your HTML.

4. Mixins and functions: Sass provides mixins and functions that allow you to reuse blocks of code and perform calculations. This can help you write more efficient and DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) code.

5. Extensibility: Sass provides advanced features like loops and conditional statements that can help you create complex styles with minimal code.

However, if your project is small, or you're not familiar with Sass, it may be an unnecessary addition. For simple projects, plain CSS might be sufficient. Additionally, learning Sass syntax and setting up the compilation process can add extra complexity to your project.

In summary, Sass can be beneficial for larger projects or when you want to improve the maintainability and organization of your styles. However, for smaller projects or when you're less experienced with CSS, sticking to plain CSS might be more appropriate.

Jekyll, Zola, and Cobalt are all static site generators, but they have some differences in terms of features, performance, and the languages they are built on. Here's a comparison of the three:

1. Language and Performance:
   • Jekyll is written in Ruby and uses the Liquid templating engine. It is one of the most popular static site generators and has a large community and ecosystem. However, it can be slower in comparison to Zola and Cobalt, especially for larger sites.
   • Zola is written in Rust and uses the Tera templating engine. Rust is known for its performance, and as a result, Zola can build sites much faster than Jekyll. This can be a significant advantage for larger projects.
   • Cobalt is also written in Rust and uses the Liquid templating engine. It offers good performance due to Rust but may not be as fast as Zola due to differences in the templating engine.
2. Features:
   • Jekyll offers a wide range of features, including support for Sass compilation, syntax highlighting, and built-in support for blogging with pagination. It also has a vast library of plugins and themes, thanks to its large community.
   • Zola has a similar feature set to Jekyll but with a focus on performance. It offers built-in support for Sass compilation, syntax highlighting, taxonomies, and pagination. It also has shortcodes and templates for common tasks.
   • Cobalt provides a more minimalistic set of features compared to Jekyll and Zola. It does not have built-in support for Sass compilation or syntax highlighting but supports blogging and pagination.
3. Community and Ecosystem:
   • Jekyll has the largest community and ecosystem among the three, with a vast library of plugins, themes, and resources. It's been around the longest and has strong support from its community.
   • Zola is gaining popularity but has a smaller community and ecosystem compared to Jekyll. There are fewer themes and plugins available, but the community is growing.
   • Cobalt has the smallest community and ecosystem among the three. It has limited themes and plugins, which might be a drawback if you're looking for extensive customization options.

   In summary, Jekyll is a popular choice with a large community and ecosystem, but it may be slower for larger projects. Zola offers better performance and a similar feature set but has a smaller community. Cobalt is a more minimalistic option with fewer features and a smaller community. Choosing between them largely depends on your project requirements, preferred language, and the level of community support and customization options you need.

Liquid and Tera are both templating engines used to generate HTML content for static site generators. Here's a comparison between the two:

1. Liquid:
   • Liquid is a Ruby-based templating language developed by Shopify. It is used in various projects, including Jekyll and Cobalt.
   • It is designed to be simple and easy to learn, with a focus on safety and security.
   • It uses a combination of tags, filters, and objects to process and render templates.
   • Tags are used for logic and control structures, such as loops and conditionals. Filters are used to modify the output of an object, and objects represent the content being output.
   • Liquid is considered safe because it does not allow arbitrary code execution, which can help prevent security vulnerabilities.
   • It has a wide range of plugins and a large community, making it easier to find resources and support.
2. Tera:
   • Tera is a Rust-based templating language inspired by Jinja2 and the Django template language. It is used in Zola.
   • It is designed for performance and safety, leveraging the speed of Rust.
   • Tera uses similar concepts to Liquid, such as tags, filters, and objects, to process and render templates.
   • It also supports template inheritance, which allows you to create a base template and extend it with child templates. This can help you create more maintainable and DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) code.
   • Like Liquid, Tera is considered safe because it does not allow arbitrary code execution.

Comparison:

• Both Liquid and Tera are designed for safety and simplicity, and both use similar concepts like tags, filters, and objects.
• Liquid has a larger community and a wider range of plugins, thanks to its use in Jekyll and Shopify.
• Tera is focused on performance and is written in Rust, which can make it faster in some cases.
• Tera supports template inheritance, which can help create more maintainable and DRY code.

Choosing between Liquid and Tera depends on the static site generator you prefer and the language you are more comfortable with. If you're using Jekyll or Cobalt, you'll work with Liquid, whereas if you choose Zola, you'll use Tera. Both are powerful and safe templating engines that can help you build static websites efficiently.

While both Jekyll and Zola are powerful and feature-rich static site generators, there are some differences in functionality that you should be aware of when choosing between the two:

1. Language and ecosystem:
   • Jekyll is written in Ruby and has a large plugin ecosystem, which means you can easily extend its functionality using various plugins developed by the community.
   • Zola is written in Rust, which is known for its speed and safety. However, it doesn't have as large of a plugin ecosystem as Jekyll. This means that there might be fewer ready-made solutions for specific use cases, and you may need to implement certain functionality on your own.
2. Theme availability:
   • Jekyll has a larger community, which has resulted in a greater number of themes available for use. This can make it easier to find a suitable theme for your blog.
   • Zola has fewer themes available, which means you might need to create your own theme or modify an existing one to fit your needs.
3. Hosting options:
   • Jekyll has native support for GitHub Pages, which makes it easy to deploy and host your site for free on GitHub.
   • Zola does not have native support for GitHub Pages, but you can still use it with GitHub Pages by generating the static files and pushing them to your repository. This requires an additional step, but it is not overly complicated.
4. Learning curve:
   • Jekyll uses the Liquid templating language, which might be easier to learn for some users, especially if they have experience with Ruby or other template languages like Jinja2.
   • Zola uses the Tera templating language, which is inspired by Jinja2 and Django. While it is still relatively easy to learn, some users might prefer the familiarity of Liquid.

Overall, while Zola may lack some of the extensive plugin ecosystem and theme availability of Jekyll, it still offers a powerful and fast static site generator with a focus on simplicity and performance. If you're comfortable with Rust and don't mind a smaller community and fewer ready-made solutions, Zola can be an excellent choice. However, if you prefer a larger community, a wider range of plugins and themes, and native support for GitHub Pages, Jekyll might be the better option.

While Zola does have built-in features that cover many use cases, there might be some Jekyll plugins with unique functionality that don't have direct equivalents in Zola. Some examples include:

1. jekyll-admin: This plugin provides a user interface to manage your Jekyll site, including editing content, managing drafts, and previewing changes. There is no direct equivalent for Zola, and you'll need to rely on your text editor or other content management tools.

2. jekyll-archives: This plugin automatically generates archive pages for your Jekyll site, such as monthly or yearly archives, tag archives, or category archives. Zola has support for taxonomies (tags and categories) out-of-the-box, but it doesn't have built-in support for generating date-based archives.

3. jekyll-paginate: This plugin provides pagination functionality for your Jekyll site. Zola has built-in support for pagination, but the implementation and customization options might differ from those offered by the jekyll-paginate plugin.

4. jekyll-redirect-from: This plugin allows you to easily create redirect pages for changed or moved content. In Zola, you'll need to handle redirects manually, either by creating a custom short code or configuring redirects on your web server.

5. jekyll-assets: This plugin helps with asset management, such as CSS, JavaScript, and image files. It provides features like asset fingerprinting, compression, and caching. Zola has some built-in features for asset management, like Sass compilation, but it doesn't provide the same level of functionality as jekyll-assets.

While these plugins might not have direct equivalents in Zola, there are often alternative solutions or workarounds for achieving similar functionality. If a specific Jekyll plugin is crucial to your project, consider whether the features it provides can be replicated in Zola or if sticking with Jekyll might be a better choice for your needs.

Yes, a Jekyll theme can be ported to Zola, but it requires some manual work. Jekyll and Zola have different templating engines and folder structures, so you'll need to make adjustments to the theme to make it compatible with Zola. Here's a rough outline of the steps involved:

1. Folder structure: Zola has a different folder structure than Jekyll. Create a new Zola project and reorganize the theme files to fit Zola's folder structure. Mainly, you'll need to move the layout files to the templates folder, and assets like CSS, JavaScript, and images to the static folder.

2. Templating engine: Jekyll uses the Liquid templating engine, while Zola uses Tera. You'll need to convert the Liquid templates to Tera templates. Although both engines share similarities, there are differences in syntax, filters, and tags. Update the template files to use Tera syntax and replace any Liquid-specific functionality with Tera equivalents.

3. Frontmatter: Update the frontmatter in the content files to match Zola's TOML or YAML format.

4. Pagination and taxonomies: If the Jekyll theme uses pagination or taxonomies (categories, tags), configure Zola to handle these features. Zola has built-in support for pagination and taxonomies, but you'll need to set them up according to the theme's requirements.

5. Plugins: If the Jekyll theme relies on any plugins, you'll need to find equivalent functionality in Zola or create custom shortcodes or components to replicate the plugin features.

6. Sass/SCSS: If the Jekyll theme uses Sass or SCSS, you can take advantage of Zola's built-in Sass compilation. Make sure to update any import paths in your Sass files to match Zola's folder structure.

7. Test and adjust: Once you've made all the necessary changes, test the Zola theme thoroughly to ensure everything works as expected. Make any adjustments or bug fixes as needed.

Porting a theme from Jekyll to Zola can be a time-consuming process, but it allows you to use your preferred theme with the benefits of Zola's features and performance.

SCSS (Sassy CSS) is a syntax for Sass (Syntactically Awesome Style Sheets), which is a CSS preprocessor. It extends the capabilities of CSS by introducing features like variables, nested rules, mixins, functions, and more. SCSS aims to make working with CSS more maintainable, structured, and efficient.

SCSS is similar to CSS in terms of syntax and uses curly braces and semicolons, which makes it easier for developers familiar with CSS to adapt to. Here's a quick comparison of CSS and SCSS:

CSS:

.navigation {
  background-color: #333;
  padding: 20px;
}

.navigation a {
  color: white;
  text-decoration: none;
  padding: 5px;
}

SCSS:

$bg-color: #333;
$link-color: white;

.navigation {
  background-color: $bg-color;
  padding: 20px;

  a {
    color: $link-color;
    text-decoration: none;
    padding: 5px;
  }
}

In the SCSS example, we use variables ($bg-color and $link-color) to store color values and nested rules for .navigation a. These features make it easier to maintain and organize your styles.

When SCSS is compiled, it generates standard CSS that browsers can understand. Using tools like Zola or other build systems, you can easily integrate SCSS compilation into your development workflow.

There isn't a dedicated automated tool to directly convert Liquid templates to Tera templates. Since Liquid and Tera have differences in syntax and functionality, it's difficult to create a fully automated conversion tool that handles all possible cases.

However, you can manually convert Liquid templates to Tera templates by following these general steps:

1. Study the differences between Liquid and Tera syntax and understand their respective features.

2. Replace Liquid tags, filters, and expressions with their Tera equivalents.

3. Test the converted templates to ensure they produce the desired output.

It's essential to familiarize yourself with both Liquid and Tera documentation to understand how each template language works and make the necessary adjustments during the conversion process.

Liquid Documentation: https://shopify.github.io/liquid/
Tera Documentation: https://tera.netlify.app/docs/