Recent searches
Search options
#Hugo's slogan of being "The world’s fastest framework for building websites" is a shameless lie.
It has been raised up 3 times on Github with benchmarks showing that other full-featured static site generators like #Zola (#Rust) are faster, sometimes by 10x. Each time, the issue is closed and locked.
I migrated a couple of websites from Hugo to Zola and won't look back.
Feel free to ping me if you need any help with Zola 
Thanks for pointing out Zola.
There are questions I have about fastest; even a relatively slow static site generator is going to be fast enough for many use cases. And "fastest" is nebulous and could mean "fast to get started", "fastest to learn", etc. Competing on features and ease of use seems to be wiser in this case rather than worrying about a slogan.
I do see hugo's home page makes a big deal of performance and invites this debate. A bit silly of them.
@faassen @kubikpixel Yeah, they mean performance as you saw on their homepage.
About the importance of performance for static site generators: It matters for responsiveness (reload after saving a file) and huge websites.
You could also have complex macros that should run as fast as possible.
Performance matters for some use cases for sure. But I wonder how common the massive website use case is for tools like Hugo. I have had a blog since 2005 with admittedly only about 200 articles and have had no problem regenerating it with Python based generators. My reason to switch to something new would refresh it and make maintenance easier.