Hugo vs. Jekyll: Benchmarked(forestry.io)

https://forestry.io/blog/hugo-vs-jekyll-benchmark/

3 comments

I think the build time is the least factor to take in consideration. I choose Jekyll some time ago because: - it was supported by github - the plain website generated was much FASTER than anything with a database (WP I'm talking at you) - as a developer I could mess with HTML and JS wasily

Build time is important at development time, when I'm programming some new feature, and I have to wait 1-2 seconds before refreshing the page. If those changes take 20 seconds, well, that's a horrible development experience.

So, for now, I'll definitely give Hugo a try (didn't even know) but we do websites for people and we should only care that the website is fast, nice and easy for them.

sgallant8 anni fa

I 100% agree that there are many factors to take into account. Liquid templating is a huge benefit of Jekyll, for example. This article was just looking at build times and we'll put another one out soon looking at other factors.

pchal8 anni fa

I'm testing out hugo + netlify for blog posts, and tried to use forestry.io as the dashboard + editor, and it looks great, EXCEPT that it messed with the MathJax (math notation within double-dollar signs) in my markdown posts. Why doesn't it just leave it as raw text that I can edit?

sgallant8 anni fa

If you run a Jekyll or Hugo site (or other), we would love to know what your build times are. For example:

Static Site Generator: Jekyll

Approximate number of pages: 200

Build time: 3.4 seconds

manuelhuez8 anni fa

Your comment caught my curiosity, and looking at the hugo command line I just found out it had a `benchmark` command. Cool!

For our main website (www.processout.com, ~100 pages) and blog, hugo takes about 39ms (on a Macbook Pro, late 2016)