← Back to context

Comment by gn4d

4 days ago

Why Hugo over Astro for something lightweight? Or why not even bashblog? Seems like a strange choice to go with Hugo if he's aiming for lightweight and speed.

Just by being written in JS/TS and using node I suppose keeping it running is a task of its own (or keep a node_modules folder of 500MB) - compared to a hugo binary that will most probably work on any linux or mac for the next 10 years.

(I see what you're getting at but Astro has to be _the worst_ example. I have migrated off hugo to my own SSG but I don't hate it)

  • Ah, makes sense, good points! I keep focusing so much on lightweight for the end user out of the box, and Astro still has been rather "lightweight" serverside for me (but good point how for a small device, a bloaty node_modules could be a pain point), though I also haven't used any large-scale deployments. Thanks for the reply! Are you rolling your own SSG now?

    • Migrated 3.5y ago - https://f5n.org/blog/2022/switching-to-nextgen/ after getting fed up with having to do a migration.

      At that time it was "make my hugo setup run, and remove 90% of the features I don't need" - but I couldn't tell you how much I have diverged, it's really not a lot of code (or dependencies, but I did not reimplement the hard parts, e.g. markdown and templating)

      1 reply →