Hugo – Golang static site editor
gohugo.io
Hugo – Golang static site editor
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#2I recently started to use Hugo for a not yet done static website I'm working on, I must say I enjoy it. I haven't deployed the site or anything yet since I'm merely experimenting. I kept trying static site generator scripts in Python 2 / Python 3 but they seem to fail for me for one reason or another.
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#3[deleted]
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#4Hugo is a great tool with a very responsive dev team and friendly community.
I use it myself for a couple of sites and I hope that the team continues to get the recognition it deserves for creating such a useful bit of software.
Incidentally, the license has recently changed to the Apache 2.0 license so hopefully this will encourage even wider adoption/contribution.
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#5If you need a way of deploying a Hugo site, I highly recommend Stout [1].
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#6Hugo is awesome, especially because of the speed of builds. We use it with netlify for https://www.staticwebtech.com and it generally takes around 5 seconds from we push to git and until a new version of the site is live.
Here's a quick guide on settings up automated deploys with hugo and netlify: https://www.netlify.com/blog/2015/10/06/a-step-by-step-guide...
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#7I started looking into Hugo as a faster alternative to Jekyll. Two reasons why you'd disregard the fact that Hugo doesn't have the same support as Jekyll on GitHub pages:
1. You're dealing with thousands or more pages. Jekyll can be slow as heck passed a few hundreds of posts. Benchmarks [1] show that Hugo is way
2. You want to avoid dealing with Ruby. Honestly, every single time I have to install a Ruby app I end up wasting 30 minutes on nonsense (wrong version, dependency hell, ...).
There are many things you can try to improve the speed of your Jekyll site (avoid loops, use Javascript to load some elements/features, leverage some configuration tricks [2]), but Hugo is just flat out much faster and much easier to deploy.
[1]: http://fredrikloch.me/post/2014-08-12-Jekyll-and-its-alterna... [2]: http://scottpatten.ca/2011/11/speeding-up-jekyll-generation....
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#8I recently started to use Hugo for a not yet done static website I'm working on, I must say I enjoy it. I haven't deployed the site or anything yet since I'm merely experimenting. I kept trying static site generator scripts in Python 2 / Python 3 but they seem to fail for me for one reason or another.
Yep, I'm basically the same - working on a static site, investigated a bunch of alternatives, and Hugo came up the clear winner.
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#9This is actually what I am using now on my personal blog (https://brock.io)
I went with hugo because it is very fast, and I didn't need to install any dependencies locally or on my server.
I bought a theme from themeforest and converted it to a hugo theme. It was a great learning experience, but the docs on actually creating a theme were a bit thin.
Re: Hugo – Golang static site editor
#10I started looking into Hugo as a faster alternative to Jekyll. Two reasons why you'd disregard the fact that Hugo doesn't have the same support as Jekyll on GitHub pages: 1. You're dealing with thousands or more pages. Jekyll can be slow as heck passed a few hundreds of posts. Benchmarks [1] show that Hugo is way 2. You want to avoid dealing with Ruby. Honestly, every single time I have to install a Ruby app I end up…
I installed and played with Jekyll on a windows box. It was a horrible experience because of installing Ruby and all the dependencies. I'd like to give Hugo a shot just because I know it's Go and it will likely be a single binary with no deps that just works.