Hugo v0.15 releasedL Higher performance, Jekyll import, template improvements

Highly recommended, fast, simple to install (single binary), super responsive team if you find any issues and reliable. Compared to the jekyll/octopress/ruby ball-of-twine that it replaced (which would break at the most in-opportune times for no apparent reason) the speed increase is phenomenal, there is even a mode that re-generates the site on the fly on changes with a local server, it is so fast you can't move your eyes from one monitor to another while saving or the page is already updated. Of all the static site generators that I've tried it wins hands-down.

I love Hugo and use it for my site.<p>Speed didn&#x27;t seem like an important feature until I was refreshing my 700 pages trying to find tweak a theme change. And now with the new 30+% speed increase in the `hugo server` command, it just got a lot better.<p>My favorite feature is the single, no-install, no-dependencies binary than works perfectly on all OSes. This is huge for Windows users. You may get lucky with the Ruby&#x2F;Bundle madness of other static site generators on Linux, but Windows support is often lagging or non-existent. With Hugo, one binary and done.<p>Recommend.

My current personal site is on Middleman, and I cannot update it from any other laptop other than my own personal one because of Ruby and all the dependencies. Bundle install compiles some native gems, which fail for any number of reasons, and are extremely difficult to troubleshoot (I spent 2 hours to no avail before I gave up - and this was on another Macbook!). I use Hexo ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hexo.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hexo.io&#x2F;</a> ) of a few other sites, and it is much better cross-platform, but still has occasional issues with dependencies.<p>I am done with Ruby static site generators. Node.js ones are much better, but it sounds like I need to give Hugo a try also. Great work!

I switched over to Hugo for my personal blog and a side project from Pelican a couple months ago. The speed is unparalleled: anecdotally, it generates a couple thousand pages in ~400ms (which would take an order of magnitude longer in Pelican). However, dealing with ACE templates was like pulling teeth, and I was considering switching away just to save me the stress; I&#x27;m glad to see that they&#x27;re working on improving the actual templating process (and that ACE apparently supports base templates now?)

I&#x27;m interested to hear what folks use to kickoff Hugo for sites hosted on GitHub Pages? TravisCI, CircleCI, etc?<p>This considering GH pages has build-in support for Jekyll but not for other static site generators.

Template improvements.. The go template system is..opinionated to say the least. It&#x27;s my biggest pain point in the language, and I include having to write min_int64_int type functions.<p>Anyway, hugo&#x27;s documentation, code quality and template improvements are stellar, congrats on the release.

&gt; Hugo now supports dynamic reloading of the config file when watching.<p>As one just starting with Hugo and still tweaking stuff, this is probably my favorite new feature.

How does Hugo compare to Harp? <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;harpjs.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;harpjs.com&#x2F;</a><p>I&#x27;ve been enjoying Harp&#x27;s ability to easily launch a web server for local development using jade + scss and compile everything to html and css before pushing to GH pages.<p>Any benefit of switching to Hugo?

Does Hugo do any of the more advanced build tasks, like image compression&amp;inlining, sass&#x2F;less&#x2F;postcss conversion (and minification)? How does it fare wrt to adding javascript behavior to pages (e.g. React components), do I have to setup a separate build system for that stuff?

This is great. I&#x27;m working on a static hosting service to make the deployment story for static websites easier. It should be live in a few days: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;statichosting.co&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;statichosting.co&#x2F;</a>