3 ms·
Have you tried Jekyll? I don’t know Hugo; I like Jekyll because it’s very simple with very little abstraction. My blog is just some hand-written HTML with liqui
by hk__2 5y ago
Have you tried Jekyll? I don’t know Hugo; I like Jekyll because it’s very simple with very little abstraction. My blog is just some hand-written HTML with liquid templating. I like how you can add any metadata you want to a post/page and then use it in your templates.
- seanosaur 5y agoJekyll was literally mentioned in the second sentence. You may have missed the point of the comment.
- klodolph 5y agoI have various static sites that I maintain, I recently added a new site created in Jekyll and wrote a bunch of content for it. While I like Jekyll and I'll continue using it, I can definitely relate to the frustration when first using it. I get this feeling that I already know what I want Jekyll's HTML to look like, and now I need to work backwards and develop an understanding of Jekyll in order to figure out how to get Jekyll to produce the desired output. By "HTML" I don't actually mean that I have a problem with embedding specific markup in the page, it's stuff like putting the files in the right place, getting the template to contain the right material, etc. And to be clear, I'm going to continue using Jekyll since it seems more practical than e.g. Hugo given my constraints / available resources / etc, and I may even migrate some other sites I maintain to Jekyll, but Jekyll, like other static site generators, seems to throw a lot of mess in the way of simple desires, as the parent comment articulates.