Hugo or Jekyll? 6 Factors You Should Know

forestry.io

7 points·forestryio··2 comments

The TL;DR looks incorrect! It's Hugo that's beginner friendly, not Jekyll. I had tried Jekyll and Octopress in the past (many years ago) and gave up on static site generation after I couldn't get the Ruby dependency hell to get installed. With Hugo, I had my site running within an hour.

Along the same lines, I found the Go templating language very natural to pick up, probably because I am a Lisp afficionado.

And lastly, you have a typo in the list of markup languages supported for content; Mark -> MMark. And you missed out Org mode in that list.

We've gotten several comments about that "beginner-friendly" quip! Installing Hugo is indeed much easier than Jekyll, but I personally find Jekyll's barrier to entry a bit lower. This owes mostly to the built-in Sass processing, the Liquid templating language, and the absence of a required file structure (this last point can be a detriment at times, but the parity between source files and rendered files is more intuitive.)

This is clearly a matter of opinion; personally, I find Go's templating syntax to be a bit more esoteric at first. This will likely depend on prior experience, as it does in your case. I have grown to love Go templates, and Hugo is my go-to for new projects.

Thanks for reading and for your feedback! I will amend the supported markup languages list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com