Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't sound all that different from your average static site generator—Python-based Jinja templating for HTML files versus Ruby-based Liquid templating for HTML/Markdown files (i.e., Jekyll).
For sure! I'm all in favor of bespoke new tools. If anything I'm just confused about the way they describe this in contrast to SSGs (and why a SSG wasn't a good option for them), and then go on to create a tool that literally generates a static site. :P
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but the reasons they gave for not using an established SSG primed me to expect a radically new solution. Versus "we didn't like any existing SSGs so we built our own," which was my takeaway from the whole thing.
I was thinking the same thing. If the author's goal was simplicity, it seems like a strange choice to forgo using an existing SSG only to build a bespoke one on their own.
A PHP site (for the includes), or an out-of-the-box SSG would make much more sense, IMO.
