Static Site Generators
-
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
@scottalanmiller said in Static Site Generators:
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
I honestly don't understand how Jekyll could be easier than Hugo.
Maybe we're both having the same issue with Hugo that something is so easy to use that we are overlooking it and trying to make it harder than it is.
Maybe. The workflow is almost identical to Jekyll. But it's faster building and you don't need to set up a ruby environment.
Can you start with a theme and just begin working from inside of it?
-
Also...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Static Site Generators:
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
@scottalanmiller said in Static Site Generators:
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
I honestly don't understand how Jekyll could be easier than Hugo.
Maybe we're both having the same issue with Hugo that something is so easy to use that we are overlooking it and trying to make it harder than it is.
Maybe. The workflow is almost identical to Jekyll. But it's faster building and you don't need to set up a ruby environment.
Can you start with a theme and just begin working from inside of it?
Yeah. That's how I usually do it.
-
My personal site is built with Hugo and hosted by GitLab Pages.
-
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
I honestly don't understand how Jekyll could be easier than Hugo.
I gave hugo a try, that's what I wanted to make work because it's a lot faster than jekyll. But it was being a big PITA to set up, that once I tried Jekyll, which "just worked", it became the winner.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Static Site Generators:
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
I honestly don't understand how Jekyll could be easier than Hugo.
Maybe we're both having the same issue with Hugo that something is so easy to use that we are overlooking it and trying to make it harder than it is.
This is probably the case. It's so damn easy so you automatically complicate it subconsciously because that's what you're used to. But once you let that go, it's like DOH!
-
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
@scottalanmiller said in Static Site Generators:
@stacksofplates said in Static Site Generators:
I honestly don't understand how Jekyll could be easier than Hugo.
Maybe we're both having the same issue with Hugo that something is so easy to use that we are overlooking it and trying to make it harder than it is.
Maybe. The workflow is almost identical to Jekyll. But it's faster building and you don't need to set up a ruby environment.
The building speed for a site with few pages (less than a couple hundred) isn't a concern at all for Jekyll, and there is not "set-up" required for the Ruby environment beyond installing it in the same line with anything else. Literally no setup.
I wanted Hugo because I have a site in mind with 1000+ pages and that will be much faster versus Jekyll to build.
I know Jekyll works well with GitHub pages, so I'd assume it'd work well in GitLab too, but neither of those are the hosting plan.
-
@Obsolesce said in Static Site Generators:
The building speed for a site with few pages (less than a couple hundred) isn't a concern at all for Jekyll,
I'm not doing a blog yet, maybe it would be with gobs of content. Like SGL being compiled. But for normal sites, it's so fast I can't go on to another task fast enough for it to make a difference.
-
@Obsolesce said in Static Site Generators:
so I'd assume it'd work well in GitLab too
Integration for that is built in, too.
-
Lol at this one:
-
@Obsolesce that's pretty funny
-
I must admit now that I'm not messing around with gem templates or whatever it was, it's super easy to work with lol.
I'd like to get a self-hosted Hugo site going to compare it to Jekyll as far as ease of management/templating/etc go.
-
