![]() Given its wide range of built-in functionality, however, this is unlikely to be a problem for most users. One disadvantage Hugo has relative to Jekyll is that it lacks the extensive plugin ecosystem available for the latter. Its documentation and tutorials are very good, and it has an ethos of maintaining simplicity which makes for a very approachable learning curve. The two tools’ build workflows are overall fairly similar.įor many, the key benefit of Hugo is its quicker, simpler path to getting started, with very little need for configuration and no dependencies other than the core binary. Like Jekyll, it ships with a lightweight HTTP server to quickly serve your pages locally. With Hugo it’s also typical to write content with Markdown, and the templating engine is based on Go templates since Hugo itself is implemented in the Go programming language. Nobody likes waiting for a site to build, and Hugo can put together a simple site from your markup and templates in milliseconds, or even blaze through thousands of pages in seconds. Hugo is the newer of the two, and one of its key focus areas is speed, which for some has been a complaint with Jekyll. Widely regarded as the ‘other’ leading static site generator, it’s only natural to compare Hugo with Jekyll. ![]() Whip up your site in milliseconds with Hugo However, it’s very well documented and the learning curve is quickly overcome. You might not be up and running as quickly as with a CMS. The big downside of Jekyll – and this applies to most generators – is that it can seem complex at first and is a new technology to master. This can be a convenient way to give a polished landing page to your GitHub project. If you have a GitHub repository, you’re able to create a GitHub pages site for free using Jekyll. Notably, Jekyll is used to power GitHub pages, a static site hosting service which is provided with GitHub. It’s also trivial to convert existing static HTML sites to Jekyll, which can be great if you’ve been coding static HTML yourself or see a template you like the look of. If you have a WordPress site, for example, you can switch to using Jekyll using one of the importers. One of Jekyll’s key selling points is its wide range of ‘importers’, which enable an existing site to be migrated to Jekyll with relative ease. 1.Jekyll remains one of the most widely used static site generators In that case, you might want to check out our list of best open source CMS for dynamic websites. It’s worth noting that you will not get complex functionality on a static website. I have compiled a list of open source static site generators that can help you build a beautiful website. This, however, is changing thanks to static website generator tools and you can use them to create blogs as well. Traditionally, static websites are more suitable for creating small websites with only a few pages and where the content doesn’t change too often. Static websites give you a few benefits like faster loading times, less server resource requirements, and better security (debatable?). Majority of the web is powered by dynamic sites where you interact with the websites and there are plenty of content that often change. ![]() It’s FOSS is a dynamic website which depends on several databases and the web pages are generated and served when there’s a request from your browser. The raw source code files are already prebuilt, the source code doesn’t change with the next server request. ![]() The HTML, CSS, JavaScript lie on the server in the version the end user receives it. Technically, a static website means the webpages are not generated on the server dynamically. These open source static website generators will help you deploy beautiful, functional static websites in no time. Brief: Looking to deploy a static web-page? No need to fiddle with HTML and CSS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |