<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Static Site Generator on Wijnand Baretta</title><link>https://wijnandbaretta.com/tags/static-site-generator/</link><description>Recent content in Static Site Generator on Wijnand Baretta</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.152.2</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2021 09:21:24 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://wijnandbaretta.com/tags/static-site-generator/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Hugo: better suited static site generator?</title><link>https://wijnandbaretta.com/posts/hugo-better-suited-static-site-generator/</link><pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2021 09:21:24 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://wijnandbaretta.com/posts/hugo-better-suited-static-site-generator/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There are several static site generators that I have tried, and &lt;a href="https://gohugo.io/"&gt;Hugo&lt;/a&gt; is now up for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It claimms to be the fastest, with pagebuilds of 1 ms per page. That is certainly impressive, but there are other aspects of Hugo that appeal to me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I have looked at &lt;a href="%5BPelican%5D:"&gt;Jekyll&lt;/a&gt; and [Pelican]. I like Jekyll because it is tightly integrated with Github pages, making it easy to launch a site. What I don&amp;rsquo;t like about Jekyl is that it is written in Ruby, mainly because I don&amp;rsquo;t know Ruby well enough.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>