Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I use Jekyll for my main site and Hugo for a couple one-off sites that maybe ten people will ever see. From what I've seen:

- Jekyll is a Ruby thing and requires you to have pretty much all the Ruby stack, including some kind of version manager like RVM. - Hugo is a binary that you can download and stick in ~/bin/. - Jekyll comes with Sass; Hugo comes with LiveReload. - You can extend Jekyll in Ruby. I wrote a thingy for Jekyll to generate breadcrumbs and color them based on a SHA hash of the page title; I don't think I could do this in Hugo without adding this sort of functionality to it myself and possibly submitting it upstream.

If I gave up my beloved auto-colorized breadcrumbs and moved to Hugo I'd still have to find a way to get Sass to execute on every Hugo rebuild, and there's still all the things I have Gulp do for production builds (autoprefix my CSS and minify the HTML). Seems like all programs in this space helpfully offer to be file-monitoring task runners, but I'd rather not have too many for what I think are simple sites.




Your `/bin` technique works for Windows as well. I run Hugo for a couple of simple sites from a Windows machine. To do this, simply copy hugo.exe to C:\Windows and call it a day.


You'd be better having it out of the OS directory and a path reference surely, no?

In any case I'd think the drawback to this is the manual updating everytime, although overwriting a single file with curl/wget is probably not much more laborious than updating gems. And less likely to break. And wouldn't have dependency problems during the update.

.. you win this round rocky1138, but don't think this is over!




Consider applying for YC's first-ever Fall batch! Applications are open till Aug 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: