dud VS gutenberg

I've used DVC in the past and generally liked its approach. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that it's clunky. It does a lot of things implicitly, which can make it hard to reason about. It was also extremely slow for medium-sized dataset (low 10s of GBs).

In response, I created a command-line tool that addresses these issues[0]. To reduce the comparison to an analogy: Dud : DVC :: Flask : Django.

[0]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

There is also https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

I very much agree with you about DVC's feature creep. The other issue I have with it is speed. DVC has left me scratching my head at its sluggishness many times. Because of these factors, I've been working on an alternative that focuses on simplicity and speed[0]. My tool is often five to ten times faster than DVC[1]. I'd love to hear what you think.

[0]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

[1]: https://kevin-hanselman.github.io/dud/benchmarks/

I don't know about replacing Make with Docker, but I use the two together to good effect. One of my favorite hacks is adding a 'docker-%' rule in my Makefile to run make commands in a Docker image[1]. It's a bit mind-bending, and there's a few gotchas, but it works surprisingly well for simple rules.

[1]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud/blob/e98de8fcdf7ad564...

Thanks for sharing your experience. It's non-trivial and surprising behavior like this that drove me to build a custom system[0] myself. When I started researching version control tools for large files, I remember feeling like git-annex and Git LFS were awkwardly bolted onto Git; Git simply wasn't designed for large files. Then I found DVC[1], and its approach rang true for me. However, after using DVC for a year or so, I grew tired of DVC's many puzzling behaviors (most of which are outlined in the README at [0]). In the end, I built the tool I wanted for the job -- one that is exceptionally simple and fast.

[0]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

Case study 3: Zola

So after shopping around a bit I found a simple, dependency-less static site generator called Zola. The lack of dependencies sounded very attractive after all the headaches trying to update my Gatsby modules. I wanted to give Zola a try and see what tradeoffs I would need to make coming form a React-based framework to this Rust-based generator.

I think you're thinking about Zola: https://github.com/getzola/zola

But yes, if I were to recommend something, it'd be Zola given that there's just one executable that you need to run and there's absolutely no setup required.

If I were to start again from scratch, I'd likely use Zola as SSG (https://www.getzola.org/)

I've used Zola (https://github.com/getzola/zola) for a static project homepage a few years ago to showcase examples with a simple description and a wasm app embedded in the page, it worked perfectly for me and the docs was clear on how to use it. It was very easy to set up along with a GitHub action to automatically update the wasm binaries when needed. It is definitely a tool I keep in my mental toolbox as a good default.

I'm currently learning https://www.getzola.org/.

It's more manual than idy like but it's gonna be for a small personal and work website so I don't mind much.

It's super fast.

Doesn't seem to fit your use casr but still.