2 ms·

Wouldn't switching to Hugo (or another of the thousand alternatives) be easier?

• sorbits 8y ago
  As I already had content with templates in liquid and custom plugins written in ruby, migrating to Hugo would definitely have taken longer than doing the initial proof-of-concept, and despite the performance, I am happier working with Jekyll than Hugo.
• osteele 8y ago
  (I'm not the OP, but I had a similar experience.) At one point I tried switching to Hugo. I ended up moving back because I liked Liquid more than Go templates, and I liked the Jekyll plugins and ecosystem.* Later I became frustrated with some complicated Jekyll sites that took 20 seconds to generate, so I ported Liquid, Jekyll, and some of the plugins, to Go.† This ran about twenty times faster.†† So that's kind of an apples-to-apples performance comparison between Jekyll (in Ruby) and Jekyll-like (in Go). These days all my sites are simple, and I think Jekyll may have gotten faster too, so I've moved back to the Ruby implementation. --- * YMMV. Many people are very happy with Hugo. Moving back to Jekyll was just my personal journey, not something I can defend with facts or figures. † To be honest, at least as important was that I was looking for a Go learning project. †† Presumably because (1) Go is a compiled language, and (2) goroutines.
• rapsey 8y ago
  I tried Hugo a week ago and using the quickstart example I got some error I had no idea what it meant. Running an example from their github produced an empty page. The theme selection is also weak in comparison. So all in all it is a complete non-starter. Jekyll however I know will work and the number of themes to choose from is huge.