Hugo vs Punch: What are the differences?
Hugo: A Fast and Flexible Static Site Generator built with love by spf13 in GoLang. Hugo is a static site generator written in Go. It is optimized for speed, easy use and configurability. Hugo takes a directory with content and templates and renders them into a full html website. Hugo makes use of markdown files with front matter for meta data; Punch: A simple, intuitive web publishing framework that will delight both designers and developers. Punch allows you to use boilerplates to quickly setup a site, write minimal templates with Mustache, and create flexible site structures with inheritable layouts and partials.
Hugo and Punch can be categorized as "Static Site Generators" tools.
Hugo and Punch are both open source tools. Hugo with 36.4K GitHub stars and 4.09K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Punch with 1.2K GitHub stars and 104 GitHub forks.
What is Hugo?
What is Punch?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Why do developers choose Punch?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Punch?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Earlier this year, I migrated my personal website (dzello.com) from Jekyll to Hugo. My goal with the migration was to make the development environment as pleasant as possible and to make it really easy to add new types of content. For example, I knew I wanted to add a consulting page and some portfolio-style pages to show off talks I had given and projects I had worked on.
I had heard about how fast Hugo was, so I tried it out with my content after using a simple migration tool. The results were impressive - the startup and rebuild times were in milliseconds, making the process of iterating on content or design less cumbersome. Then I started to see how I could use Hugo to create new page types and was very impressed by the flexibility of the content model. It took me a few days to really understand where content should go with Hugo, but then I felt very confident that I could create many different types of pages - even multiple blogs if I wanted - using a consistent syntax and with full control of the layouts and the URLs.
After about 6 months, I've been very happy with the results of the migration. The dev environment is light and fast and I feel at ease adding new pages and sections to the site.
The Static Content Generator engine, Hugo, is what I use to convert the Markdown content of my site into HTML for serving to the public.
Using Hugo as a backend to generate content for a statically hosted frontend reduces the security risk of hosting a dynamically interactive site.
We use Hugo to build our documentation website based on Markdown content.
We use Hugo to generate all of our secondary sites including documentation, blog and help center.
Hugo is my favorite static site generator. It's the engine behind my personal blog.