Smashing Mag had a good write up explaining this http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/11/static-website-gener...
I did find myself wanting to introduce custom logic - like custom helper funcs for the Go templates - but there is no way to do this short of modifying and rebuilding hugo.
Specifically I wanted to use some functions from here: https://github.com/dustin/go-humanize
In the short run, it was fine. Since most of the data is structured I could write a script to modify the input data to prepare for output without modification.
Not sure about hugo's longterm plan for this type of thing, but overall it is an awesome project and would highly recommend over every other static site generator.
https://gohugo.io/content/front-matter/
That still leaves you with the problem of populating the front matter.
Speed didn'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.
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/Bundle madness of other static site generators on Linux, but Windows support is often lagging or non-existent. With Hugo, one binary and done.
Recommend.
(This probably applies to all build processes, not just static site generation.)
Yup. Consistent on Linux and Windows is very useful for me. The python world are pretty good about cross-platform, but not as good as Go, and the ruby world has an attitude that might best be characterised as "sneering contempt."
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!
There are some cool improvements in the upcoming Go 1.6 that will make the regular Go templates a lot nicer to work with (Hugo 0.16, maybe?)
This considering GH pages has build-in support for Jekyll but not for other static site generators.
It's like GitHub pages on steroids (SSL, redirects/rewrite rules, proxying, domain aliases, etc, etc...). It'll run any build tool for you (not just Jekyll) and we have built-in support for Hugo:
https://www.netlify.com/blog/2015/10/06/a-step-by-step-guide...
Disclaimer: I'm a founder :)
I just used this technique for https://stevefrancia.com and the wercker files are at https://github.com/spf13/stevefrancia.com
disclaimer: I work for Aerobatic
Anyway, hugo's documentation, code quality and template improvements are stellar, congrats on the release.
As one just starting with Hugo and still tweaking stuff, this is probably my favorite new feature.
I've been enjoying Harp'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.
Any benefit of switching to Hugo?
Hugo provides a server for local development like jade.
Hugo is a bit easier to install as it doesn't have dependencies and doesn't require an existing environment.
Hugo is noticibly faster.
The big difference between the two is that Hugo has not focused on compiling all the other assets like scss, less, coffee script, etc. While this is planned for a future release today Hugo users have experienced a lot success pairing Hugo with Gulp. You can read more in this discussion on the forum: https://discuss.gohugo.io/t/gulp-hugo-hugo-npm/1121
Unfortunately by introducing gulp it negates some of the benefits of Hugo's one binary install.
Hugo does provide some advanced features that I don't believe Harp provides including:
* Data file loading https://gohugo.io/extras/datafiles/
* Live data https://gohugo.io/extras/datadrivencontent/
* Live reload (this is a huge feature) https://gohugo.io/extras/livereload/
* Menus https://gohugo.io/extras/menus/
* Themes https://themes.gohugo.io
If you are happy with Harp and it serves your needs than there's not really a reason to switch.
The big difference is Hugo + Gulp is a workflow that works really well and has all the features that Harp provides (plus all the Hugo features). If you need a feature that only Hugo provides there really isn't a way to add that to harp.js.
I'm the author of Hugo and haven't ever used Harp so take all of this with a grain of salt.
