4 ms·
I'm also trying to decide between Hugo and Lektor (Note: I'm having some flask experience). At first view Hugo seemed superior but I looked at some important sp
by therealmarv 10y ago
I'm also trying to decide between Hugo and Lektor (Note: I'm having some flask experience). At first view Hugo seemed superior but I looked at some important specifics for me like e.g. thumbnail generation, Plugin System (important for developers) or CMS like editing. All this stuff is not available in Hugo core but it's already built into Lektor.
It seems the biggest weakness of Hugo is that it is statically built and not easy to extend (only easier to deploy). If you build your own Makefile/gulp etc. around it it may also work for you but Lektor is more flexible when looking at this. From a developers perspective Lektor seems more customizable... unless you are a die hard Go developer.
I think Lektor community can outgrow Hugo's one because of the plugin system. Building a toolset around a binary to extend a page generator does not seem the right way @hugo team.
But at the end it all depends on your requirements. Hugo is much much easier to deploy and many people do not want to extend their page generator.
- StavrosK 10y agoI agree, but someone on the Hugo forums pointed me to this issue: https://github.com/lektor/lektor/issues/180 https://github.com/lektor/lektor/issues/180 The fact that it's such an egregious issue (85 minutes for 2000 posts?!) that has been open for 9 months doesn't give me much hope in the development speed of Lektor. This also matches my experience, as I see trivial issues and PRs open for months in Lektor's repo... The Lektor dev (it wasn't Armin) told me on Gitter that development has stalled a bit, but will hopefully pick up in 2017. I certainly hope so, becaue it's a well-designed site generator.
- therealmarv 10y agomaybe when community and development speed and extensibility are the main requirements it all leads back to Jekyll :/ if I would be a ruby guy it would be definitely my first choice. Hugo is the speedy gonzales with easy deployment but lacks good extensibility when you want to go into the code level :(
- StavrosK 10y agoI think you're right... Bah, just when I was convinced by Hugo, you convinced me to use Lektor again :P
- therealmarv 10y agosorry :D it really depends on your requirements. If Hugo in its current state covers you or if you can live with a light toolchain around Hugo go Hugo (I think many people do not need to touch the go code). There is nobody saying that you cannot write a little python code which is run before/after hugo (actually some people are doing that!). But if you want total control/extensibility with your python code in the page generator the Lektor plugin system will give you more power.
- StavrosK 10y agoI decided to go with Lektor in the end, since it's much easier to work with and good enough for my purposes for now. Plus, since I'm a Python dev, I can extend it much more easily.
- mattkevan 10y agoYeah, the lack of thumbnail generation is an issue. It's definitely something which should be built in.
- bjornerik 10y agoAgree. bep (Hugo maintainer)
- bjornerik 10y agoI am bep, the lead maintainer of Hugo. A plugin system will happen in Hugo, and I don't think it will take too long to get there -- we have been thinking about it for some time, and it feels natural to have that before we call it 1.0. CMS like editing is something that could live well outside of Hugo, me thinks.
- mattkevan 10y agoOh that's exciting. Will be a great addition to a really good system. Looking forward to it!
- therealmarv 10y agoThanks bep. I'm really looking forward to that. With a plugin system the Hugo community will also grow IMHO. Looking forward to it. I agree that CMS like editing should not necessarily be inside of Hugo.