My comment above was intended to add some value and perspective on using Hugo in a real world business/industry/paying customer website scenario... something be

My comment above was intended to add some value and perspective on using Hugo in a real world business/industry/paying customer website scenario... something beyond a personal blog. So RE: the main discussion here about Jekyll and Hugo and static site generators (SSGs), I think that if you take a moment to consider the difference between the SSG/JAMstack approach vs. the traditional "build the response on every request" back-end approach (and I'm not picking on .NET and SQL Server there, I've developed many sites using them myself) you'll see that there are some huge differences[1]. I think the most important difference is that with SSGs and JAMstack, your back-end code only runs at build time, on free build server infrastructure. There is no runtime back-end code, and therefore you can operate these JAMstack sites, at scale, at zero or near-zero operating cost. In the case of my customer, I estimate I saved them $100K over the life of this new site. Of course, your use-case must align with this sort of architecture. Not every site can or should be totally re-generated when content is changed. And importantly for my customer, they did not have to sacrifice a nice, user-friendly content-management experience. I happen to be using Netlify CMS, but others like Contentful and Forestry are nice options too[2]. [1] https://youtu.be/uWTMEDEPw8c https://youtu.be/uWTMEDEPw8c [2] https://headlesscms.org/ https://headlesscms.org/