buf VS Hugo

The Buf CLI is a versatile tool designed for handling Protocol Buffers (Protobuf), a method of serializing structured data. It offers several key features, including managing Protobuf assets through the Buf Schema Registry (BSR), providing a linter to enforce optimal API design and structure, and a breaking change detector to maintain compatibility either in source code or at the wire level. Additionally, the Buf CLI includes a generator that activates plugins based on user-defined templates and a formatter to standardize the formatting of Protobuf files according to industry norms. It also integrates seamlessly with the Buf Schema Registry, supporting comprehensive dependency management.

We'll use the Buf CLI as an alternative to protoc so that we can save our generation configuration as YAML. Buf is compatible with protoc plugins.

Not so much anymore! Take a look at buf.build, it makes the whole thing notoriously easy :)

In my opinion it's a good idea, it's the architecture we use at work, and it works well for us. The main limitation to be aware of is that many PaaS don't support gRPC traffic (because of the proxies used). For example, DigitalOcean App Platform or Heroku if I remember correctly. If the way you want to host your backend is OK with HTTP/2 and gRPC traffic, then it's not a limitation. One way around this limitation is to use the gRPC-Web protocol, or the Connect protocol (https://connect.build/). Unfortunately, Dart's gRPC client does not support the gRPC-Web protocol outside the web platform. So for a mobile application, it's not usable at the moment. (If this PR were accepted, it would solve the issue: https://github.com/grpc/grpc-dart/pull/557.) As for Connect, no client is currently offered by Buf for Dart. Don't hesitate if you want to know more. That said, I'd advise you to use the Connect implementation for Go to implement your backend. Connect will enable your server to speak all three protocols (gRPC, gRPC-Web and Connect), which is very useful in the long term. What's more, the code is cleaner, and you benefit from official support for observability with OpenTelemetry. If you don't know Buf (the creators of Connect),I suggest you visit their website: https://buf.build/. :-) Good luck!

As mentioned in the intro, we are going to use Buf and Connect as our tools. We’ll start by installing the dependencies.

gRPC itself is quite nice, especially with buf which makes generating Go code much easier. The rest of the code was in a bad state. Unmaintained router packages, repository pattern without any actual benefit or a repository pattern.

The second big difference is that we now have auto-generated client and server stubs. For this task, I chose to use buf and the protobuf-ts plugin in order to generate idiomatic Typescript classes and objects. Not only do these classes describe the types we'll use in the server and client, but also includes the actual gRPC implementations used to serialize and send messages back and forth across the wire.

Our team has been using Buf (https://buf.build) recently, and they have a nice solution for schema dependency management.

I've found that https://buf.build/ is easier to use than protoc directly.

Consider checking out https://connect.build from https://buf.build. Supports a simpler protocol than grpc-web. Includes a js/ts client for frontend. Then you don’t necessarily need a rest layer, but could leverage the proxy your building.

At one point though I realized there is a scaling problem with my build minutes. I knew that golang has considerably faster builds and in my case the easy fix is swapping over to Hugo.

This blog is running on Hugo. It had previously been running on Jekyll. Both these SSGs ship with the ability to create excerpts from your markdown content in 1 line or thereabouts.

Hugo

Hugo is a popular static site generator specifically designed to create websites and documentation lightning-fast. Its minimalist approach, emphasis on speed, and ease of use have made it popular among developers, technical writers, and anybody looking to construct high-quality websites without the complexity of typical CMS platforms.

As per many other comments, it sounds like a static site generator like Hugo (https://gohugo.io/) or Jekyll (https://jekyllrb.com/), hosted on GitHub Pages (https://pages.github.com/) or GitLab Pages (https://about.gitlab.com/stages-devops-lifecycle/pages/), would be a good match. If you set up GitHub Actions or GitLab CI/CD to do the build and deploy (see e.g. https://gohugo.io/hosting-and-deployment/hosting-on-github/), your normal workflow will simply be to edit markdown and do a git push to make your changes live. There are a number of pre-built themes (e.g. https://themes.gohugo.io/) you can use, and these are realtively straightforward to tweak to your requirements.

Create the technical documentation of your project You can use any of the following options: * A wiki, like the ArchWiki that uses MediaWiki * Read the Docs, used by projects like Setuptools. Check Awesome Read the Docs for more examples. * Create a website * Create a blog, like the documentation of Blowfish, a theme for Hugo.

Doing this made me appreciate existing SSGs like Hugo and Next.js even more👏👏

I suggest hugo: https://gohugo.io/

Generates a completely static website from MD (and other formats) files; also handles themes (including a lot of them rendering well on mobile), and different types of content - posts, articles, etc. - depending on the theme.

It's open source and, being completely static, cheap as fuck to self host.