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.
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.
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?
5 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 24.1 ms ] threadStatic Site Generator: Jekyll
Approximate number of pages: 200
Build time: 3.4 seconds
For our main website (www.processout.com, ~100 pages) and blog, hugo takes about 39ms (on a Macbook Pro, late 2016)
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.