4 ms·
Hugo is, IMHO, one of the best, most versatile options out there for an SSG. I've been using it since v0.15 (now at 0.37). I use it for a simple, mostly text,
by dhruvkar 9y ago
Hugo is, IMHO, one of the best, most versatile options out there for an SSG. I've been using it since v0.15 (now at 0.37).
I use it for a simple, mostly text, blog (https://kar.ai https://kar.ai).
I also use it for an image-heavy company site (https://www.stonelandinc.com https://www.stonelandinc.com).
I also use it for 20+ other sites for clients.
It's undergoing heavy development, so that may be a pro or con, depending.
e.g. Recently they added image processing [0]. This eliminates a python script I was using for the same purpose. It's much faster as well, which matters when regenerating ~1k images.
Down side, documentation & community is still catching up on the newer features.
0: https://gohugo.io/content-management/image-processing/ https://gohugo.io/content-management/image-processing/
- artemis73 9y agoThat's quite some praise there. Definitely reinforces the suggestions others have made as well. 20+ sites is a lot, wow :O I do not think the blog is going to be too image heavy as I'd like to keep it simple for now but it's definitely a plus to have. Thank you! :)
- slazaro 9y agoYou have been using it for a long time, right? Have you found any issues in the case when you previously successfully generated a site using an older version, but then install a newer version in a different machine, and you try to generate the site with the "old" source? That unfortunately has happened to me with other static site generators (breaking changes between versions with no automatic way to resolve them or thorough documentation on the changes to make to the source).
- dhruvkar 9y agoYes, a couple issues along the way. Honestly, they were minor enough that I don't remember the specifics, and it didn't take me long to fix. Since they're not at v1.0 yet, this is to be expected somewhat.