One of the biggest changes for this blog happened just now - this blog switched from Lektor to Hugo. For me, it’s been a revolution in how personally productive I can be. I’m expecting that this will improve how quickly I can write and publish blog articles here and, maybe, even lead to me publishing more than 1x per ~3-6month period. I don’t intend this to be a dead blog, and I’m putting in the work to make that the case.
I choose technologies in a very safe way, following a pattern:
- Choose technologies that already have strong adoption as opposed to niche or cutting-edge.
- Use technologies the way that others use them. Look for examples, re-use resources where possible.
My original system didn’t meet either of these. This is a long-overdue follow up to my first post about the technologies I chose the first time around.
Choosing a New Static-Site Generator
Primary resource used: staticgen.com
Background, I don’t particularly love being in the React ecosystem for scenarios when the value of React likely won’t be realized (which is to say, highly interactive sites that benefit from one-way data flow). This site is primarily data and not interactivity, so doesn’t necessarily lend itself to using it.
- It’s a single binary I can install anywhere.
- I’m learning Go, and it reuses much of the Go ecosystem (notably, templating).
- It’s fast.
- It takes a simple approach to the web; that it’s a static set of HTML, CSS, and JS files. While you can wrap a build system like Webpack or Gulp in, it provides enough out-of-the-box features using Hugo Pipes that it may not be necessary.
- Batteries included: Useful shortcodes, deployment targets, integrations.
- It’s one of the supported static site generators for Netlify CMS, which is what I intend to use to write content from here on out.
- The other obvious options, considering their popularity, are Gatsby and Next.js, but this site is largely static content and doesn’t necessitate the React ecosystem.
- Support for some automatic content systems like Taxonomies and Archetypes.
Why Not Hugo?
In building the site on Hugo, there were a number of things that I encountered that I didn’t love; they were few and far between though.
- Examples. The biggest single deficiency of Hugo as a static-site generator is that the examples provided by the documentation aren’t great. I’ve got strong feelings about this and I’m going to try to see if I can note times where this is missing and submit those as MRs.
- Template debugging. Aside from
printfing a bunch of variables, I didn’t find the mechanisms for figuring out what data is available where to be particularly useful (not that other SSGs have this down, though).
- Template Lookup Order. Error messages are confusing and it’s hard to figure out where things slot into. The warnings that the hugo builder provides could be so much more useful.
- As of writing, Netlify CMS doesn’t yet support page bundles (although this should be available soon).
Why Not Lektor (any more)?
My needs for the website have changed pretty drastically from when I first built it in 2016 and wrote things for it in 2018.
- It’s not popular (ranked ~30th on StaticGen for static-site generators), and it’s not growing in popularity.
- I don’t really use Python for anything web-facing, which is one of the reasons I originally stuck with Lektor.
- Not enough batteries included. Many integrations are abandoned or haven’t been updated in forever.
- Bad writing ergonomics. The editing page isn’t very helpful, and it doesn’t actually help you create content faster. There once was a Electron app that theoretically a headless CMS for the software, but it was quickly abandoned.
Build & Deploy
This site is now built and deployed using Github Actions, which are similar to Gitlab CI in form and function but are much easier to get up and going with if your repository is hosted there.