3 ms·

Is Hugo significantly different from Jekyll?

• otras 4y ago
  I'm not familiar with Jekyll, but if I recall correctly it's very, very similar. I just happened to pick Hugo at the start and haven't revisited the decision since, as it's tangential to the actual writing.
• ymolodtsov 4y ago
  Hugo is much faster thanks to the fact it's written in Go. The approach by itself is the same. Also, seems to have one of the most active communities among blog-focused static generators.
• schemescape 4y ago
  Hugo is distributed as a single binary, but Jekyll requires a Ruby environment (assuming you want to test locally).
• clintonb 4y ago
  I found that Hugo requires a shift in asset organization in the sense that assets are collocated with posts. If your post has three images, those images are in the same directory as the post markdown. Jekyll keeps assets separated. Your posts live in _posts. Your static assets live together in a different directory. I briefly experimented with switching from Jekyll to Hugo, but had too much invested—custom plugins and reliance on existing Jekyll plugins—in the Jekyll ecosystem to make the switch worthwhile.