3 ms·
Having used both quite a lot, I much prefer Jekyll's template language as it's easier to use and more readable. It's a lot easier to install plugins to extend J
by seanwilson 9y ago
Having used both quite a lot, I much prefer Jekyll's template language as it's easier to use and more readable. It's a lot easier to install plugins to extend Jekyll as well. However, Hugo coming in a single binary makes it easy to get working when you come back to a site you've not updated in a while (my Jekyll toolchain was a combination of Ruby + Node + Gulp that felt brittle but could be improved with some work), it's suppose to be significantly faster (I've seen people saying it takes Hugo seconds to generate thousands of posts compared to minutes with Jekyll) and I've had less issues with Hugo's watch feature (Jekyll doesn't refresh when you change files sometimes for me). I don't use a lot of plugins or complex templates so the speed and simplicity of Hugo is a big factor for me.
- andrei_says_ 9y agoDoes Hugo support partials? An equivalent of frontmatter? Slim Lang?
- seanwilson 9y agoIt has partials, Front Matter as well and you can use Ace or Jade templates as an alternative but not Slim Lang as far as I know.