Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Lord_Zero | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

Lord_Zero

I wrote a similar blog post: https://tberra.com/aws/amazon/meta/2016/11/12/the-birth-of-a...

The main differences on mine are:

- I use Jekyll, which is ranked #1 in the static site generator space.

- Hosted on AWS S3.

- CloudFront in front of S3.

- Routing and aliases handled by Route53.

- Deployed using a tool called s3_websites (change detection only uploading generated files AND cloud front cache invalidation for only the changed objects).

- Coded in a Docker container via a cloud IDE called c9.io using the Ruby template.

- Generator and site files committed to a GIT repository hosted on AWS CodeCommit.

View on HN

I also deploy to S3 largely for operational reasons — it costs nothing unless it's getting pretty significant traffic, and it easily scales up to handle ~infinite volume in case I'm not (unlike say running on Digital Ocean or something).

Another very nice piece of the puzzle is TLS certificate management using Amazon's ACM. It's no cheaper than Let's Encrypt, but it's a lot more convenient. You put it in place once, and you never have to touch it again — Amazon's engineers will deal with hiccups and bugs instead of you. It's no more convenient than CloudFlare, but I like to minimize the number of services my dependency graph.

Letsencrypt is free And you can automate the renewal process.

I still remember that IRC conversation somehow haha.

I still use Jekyll too. It's awesome. It powers my main site (about 100 posts) and builds "fast enough" where it doesn't get in the way.

Although I use DigitalOcean and use Ansible to build / deploy the site. A couple of lines of yaml lets me deploy a new site with HTTPS (using Let's Encrypt).

I see both Jekyll and Hugo mentioned frequently in the "Using GitHub and X to host your website" space. Do you have any practical our technical reasons for preferring one over the other?

It honestly doesn't really matter. Both ingest Markdown, apply a theme, and spit out HTML which you then copy to your HTTP server. It's sort of like asking "which version control do you prefer? Mercurial or Git" or "which build tool do you prefer? clang or gcc." Your choice in the matter doesn't really impact the end result, just your own workflow. Jekyll is probably more popular simply because GitHub has it integrated with GitHub Pages.

If you're not already set up with a Ruby development environment, I'd use pick Hugo over Jekyll. Jekyll is nice but getting all the Ruby junk going was annoying, IMO. Maybe it's trivial for someone better than me.

Having used both quite a lot, I much prefer Jekyll's template language as it's easier to use and more readable. It's a lot easier to install plugins to extend Jekyll as well. However, Hugo coming in a single binary makes it easy to get working when you come back to a site you've not updated in a while (my Jekyll toolchain was a combination of Ruby + Node + Gulp that felt brittle but could be improved with some work), it's suppose to be significantly faster (I've seen people saying it takes Hugo seconds to generate thousands of posts compared to minutes with Jekyll) and I've had less issues with Hugo's watch feature (Jekyll doesn't refresh when you change files sometimes for me). I don't use a lot of plugins or complex templates so the speed and simplicity of Hugo is a big factor for me.

Does Hugo support partials? An equivalent of frontmatter? Slim Lang?

It has partials, Front Matter as well and you can use Ace or Jade templates as an alternative but not Slim Lang as far as I know.

I've dropped Jekyll just because of windows support. I've been using hexo and hugo in two projects and worked great!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com