5 ms·
My experience with Hugo through v0.17 was that it takes ~1ms per post to generate. IIRc that was one of the major reasons why the author wrote, vastly increase
by mark212 9y ago
My experience with Hugo through v0.17 was that it takes ~1ms per post to generate. IIRc that was one of the major reasons why the author wrote, vastly increase the speed of regenerating the site.
- nickthemagicman 9y agoRight. But I can update my Wordpress site from my phone in China without a laptop running Hugo...
- mcbits 9y agoMaybe things are getting better these days (?), but at various points throughout its history, anyone could update your WordPress site from their phone in China.
- veidr 9y agoRight, and that's a truly killer feature if you happen to need it. Hugo doesn't address that problem at all, nor do Jekyll, which I currently use, and the other similar tools I've looked at. However, the missing step there (of rendering the static site and publishing it) seems well suited to being done "in the cloud" then on the client device where the posting/editing/typo. If you have a machine or VM on the Internet to use, this is not difficult to set up for yourself (any computer-proficient user with a little time can do it). But doing that is also nowhere near as trivial as WordPress makes it (any person at all can do it).