Makesite.py is "sold" as an alternative to Jekyll for people who prefer Python. Yet, it completely fails to mention Pelican [1]. Why should I bother with this instead of going with the featureful and well-tested Pelican?
I think the appeal of a tool like Makesite.py is that you can make it what you want [3]. It is about a 100 lines of code and written very neatly. Instead of wading through documentation and configuration to figure how to get Jekyll or Pelican running, you can make your own Jekyll or Pelican. I can see why many individualist programmers would like such a thing.
[1] https://github.com/sunainapai/makesite/network
[2] https://github.com/search?q=%22makesite.py%22&type=Code
[3] https://github.com/tuchandra/tuchandra.github.io/blob/master...
That's a really strange argument to make. If you see the README, it mentions, "But then did you yearn to use something even simpler to generate your blog? Do you like Python? Perhaps the thought of writing your own static site generator crossed your mind but you thought it would be too much work? If you answered "yes" to these questions, then this project is for you."
Makesite.py is being presented as a do-it-yourself blogging solution with makesite.py serving as a good starting point to start hacking. It is very different from Jekyll. How does it make sense to mention Pelican which is, if anything, similar to Jekyll and not similar to Makesite.py?
In the presence of excellent tools like Jekyll or Pelican that are also fairly easy to use and extend, I'd need a concrete use-case before going DIY. If there is no concrete use-case, the DIY static generators is just another version of the "not invented here" syndrome. Just my 2¢.