Look you up? I read the article, if that's what you mean. I use a static site generator as well, I was just curious as to why you wouldn't recommend that instead since it's powering your own site. I don't disagree, it just seemed odd.
I'm CTO of a django-powered startup, which I link to on my website. Django is great for dynamic content, learning it will teach you about databases and help you make nice UI's.
My personal site is just boring static pages. Hyde (or Jekyll, for the ruby folks) is the right tool for such things.
I apologize if my response offended you, maybe I can be clearer with some more detail: it just seemed odd, considering Hyde is linked on the post and Styloot is not (and even there, the only way I know that it has anything to do with django is by finding it under technologies used in your resume).
If you want to become a web developer, then sure– django or rails, take your pick (or anything other framework that suits your fancy, though I too would go with django). But that wasn't your point.
>No one hires PhDs for web development skills, but knowing some basics certainly opens up some doors. I wouldn't want to hire a PhD who would couldn't build at least a demo himself.
Some basics would include HTML, CSS, and Hyde as well, no? Especially if the point is to give yourself a proper web presence such as your own site. I was wrong to call it a 'fleeting interest', that was simply my impression from only looking at the post. However, if you're willing to expand on that bit it would probably be beneficial to those who aren't already aware since they're your target anyway.
Aside from all of this, thanks for the Software Carpentry link– this should come in handy the next time I try to help someone dive into programming.
Do you believe I should have used Django or Rails for my personal website? Was Hyde the wrong tool for the job?