I'm a big hugo fan. I contribute to their forum. I use hugo to build my site. I've used it on freelance projects. I could go on and on about it.
I do hear the concerns here. I agree that the docs are more reference style, and less tutorial style. (Tho, as you gain experience, you prefer the reference style).
After I learned hugo, I wrote the tutorial I wish I would of had. Am shamelessly sharing it here in case it's useful for someone else wanting to deep dive:
I mostly agree with the author on "I avoid the new and shiny." ... The post links to another named "TypeScript is weakening the JavaScript ecosystem". In that post, the author says "My context is that I've not looked into TypeScript yet. That means I have no idea how it works.". I am all for reading a good critique, but how can you adequately critique a technology if you don't know how to use it?
I think it could be a good critique. It's a good point in general (just think about Grunt, Gulp, Broccoli, webpack and the like), but I don't see TypeScript as the "new and shiny" anymore.
Although there are alternatives (Flow, for example), to me it seems like the community has picked TS as the way forward, so in my opinion TS is a very low risk technology with real benefits, so I wouldn't hesitate adding it to a project's tech stack.
It's here to stay and a big chunk of JavaScript developers enjoy using TypeScript.
Surprisingly, many get upset about this particular line while the reason I added it was simply to be honest in my argument.
As you can already infer from the headline of that post, I tried writing a statement that is about how Typescript is weakening the JavaScript ecosystem.
I don't see the argument that it's weakening the JavaScript ecosystem. If anything it enriches it as you have (generally) safer more robust code to work with.
TypeScript is reaching GHC level of configuration flags, builds using it manage to even be slower than many native toolchains, and the team seems to just keep going with crazy type systems ideas, I already lost track of them.
Really, I hope that in a couple of years browsers would just allow for WebIDL integration and that is it.
It's quite common to see a similar concern raised about contemporary versions of the Swift language design (language-nerd lunatics taking over the asylum).
If you're using VS Code or WebStorm/IntelliJ (and doubtless any other editor which has its own internal copy of TypeScript and uses its language service) you can write JavaScript and still get most of the benefits of using TypeScript without buying into the tooling - it's my preferred way to make use of it.
e.g. for VS Code, stick a jsconfig.json in your project's root:
If you want TypeScript to know about the types in your project, or help it with stuff it can't figure out on its own you can add them using JSDoc comments:
The best thing is if TypeScript is being silly about your working code (its type definitions for the DOM can be particularly painful to work with), you can just ignore it :)
Steve Jobs and other Silicon Valley luminaries used to literally "walk around the block" near their house with a guest and hold walking meetings. I think the San Jose Mercury News had an article on that.
I discovered that habit independently after moving to SV, since the weather is almost always good enough for a walk.
Plus walking alone after finishing a feature lets your subconscious queue up the next priority.
I should clarify. I mean badly asked questions, to mean that someone has asked a lazy question, and not done their due diligence before asking for a hand-hold. I am all for helping someone with a good question. I do it daily.
I do hear the concerns here. I agree that the docs are more reference style, and less tutorial style. (Tho, as you gain experience, you prefer the reference style).
After I learned hugo, I wrote the tutorial I wish I would of had. Am shamelessly sharing it here in case it's useful for someone else wanting to deep dive:
https://zwbetz.com/make-a-hugo-blog-from-scratch/