3 ms·

This seems to be the story for nearly all static site generators (except for maybe Jekyll, whose drawback is it's a hassle for non-Ruby devs to properly setup a

This seems to be the story for nearly all static site generators (except for maybe Jekyll, whose drawback is it's a hassle for non-Ruby devs to properly setup a Ruby environment, especially on Windows). I migrated from WordPress to Hugo for awhile, but eventually gave and migrated back. You can love WordPress or hate it, but it has an infinite variety of paid and free professional-quality themes. Hugo has a slew of one-person amateur projects, the best of which are half-baked clones of WordPress themes. What's worse, they tend to be poorly-maintained, and stop working whenever Hugo introduces breaking changes (which at least a few years ago, was frequent). I appreciate all of the conceptual advantages of a static site generator versus a CMS application host. But for most users, a website tool is simply only as good as its theme ecosystem.

djangelic 4y ago
I agree that this does not yet replace wordpress, however it's a step in the right direction. I do think that this does have an audience, travelers or those in places with bad network infrastructure like volunteers in the Peace Corps could make good use of this, where they may go months without getting internet access. Also, I see this as a great tool to use for my personal non monetized blog, where I don't need the infinite variety of themes or the need to constantly keep the system up to date. I just want something I can type up notes or simple ideas and publish them simply. I don't think this is a huge subset of users right now, but it would be nice to have things like this more available for this type of use.