Build Static Sites with Hugo

This site is written with the Hugo static site generator. It is a blast to use. Previously, Jekyll was my tool of choice, but here are two reasons why I now choose to use Hugo over Jekyll:

  1. Speed
  2. Ease of installation

While these two reasons alone may not seem like a good enough reason to switch, I promise that I’ll justify my stance in a thousand words or less!

Speed

Hugo is fast. I’m certain that you didn’t picture the right thing when I said fast, so I’d like you to imagine a bullet train, inside another bullet train, inside another bullet train with fire painted on the sides. Yeah, that fast!

When writing articles, it’s nice to see a preview of your current work, just to verify that what you are writing looks nice on the page, and your code snippets aren’t too long. On Jekyll (though I’ve certainly bogged it down with lots of extra processing,) a rebuild can take nearly a minute to finish. Go rebuilds nearly instantaneously, and reloads your webpage to boot! Dramatically shorter rebuilds don’t sound like a huge benefit for a software tool designed to run once and generate some files to sit on a disk, but a snap is still so much nicer than a coffee break. I’m impatient sometimes.

Ease of Installation

Jekyll is written in Ruby. Ruby is fantastic, but Ruby projects are often a pain to babysit. Hugo is shipped as a standalone executable. This standalone executable does not break or whine about outdated dependencies, it can just be replaced when needed. Hugo wins (for basic sites.)

Conclusion

Should you rewrite your old websites in Hugo? No, unless you actively maintain the site and write new articles for it all the time. New projects should absolutely be started in Hugo. Old work need not be converted unless the faster rebuilds would save you time.

I hope my short opinion piece has done enough to convince you to use Hugo for your new site!