Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Hugo vs Wintersmith: What are the differences?
What is 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.
What is Wintersmith? Flexible, minimalistic, multi-platform static site generator built on top of node.js. Wintersmith is a simple yet flexible static site generator. It takes contents (markdown, less, scripts, etc), transforms them using plugins and outputs a static website (html, css, images, etc) that you can host anywhere.
Hugo and Wintersmith belong to "Static Site Generators" category of the tech stack.
Some of the features offered by Hugo are:
- Run Anywhere - Hugo is quite possibly the easiest to install software you've ever used, simply download and run. Hugo doesn't depend on administrative privileges, databases, runtimes, interpreters or external libraries. Sites built with Hugo can be deployed on S3, Github Pages, Dropbox or any web host.
- Fast & Powerful - Hugo is written for speed and performance. Great care has been taken to ensure that Hugo build time is as short as possible. We're talking milliseconds to build your entire site for most setups.
- Flexible - Hugo is designed to work how you do. Organize your content however you want with any URL structure. Declare your own content types. Define your own meta data in YAML, TOML or JSON.
On the other hand, Wintersmith provides the following key features:
- Flexible - Wintersmith tries not to put any limitations on how you work with your content. You can transform it using plugins and structure it as you please.
- Templating - Use your favorite templating engine, it comes bundled with a Jade plugin and there is community made plugins for most other node.js templating engines.
- Markdown - No more fiddling around with WYSIWYG editors. Once you start using Markdown to author your content you'll never look back!
Hugo and Wintersmith are both open source tools. Hugo with 36K GitHub stars and 4.05K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Wintersmith with 3.47K GitHub stars and 348 GitHub forks.
Hi everyone, I'm trying to decide which front-end tool, that will likely use server-side rendering (SSR), in hopes it'll be faster. The end-user will upload a document and they see text output on their screen (like SaaS or microservice). I read that Gatsby can also do SSR. Also want to add a headless CMS that is easy to use.
Backend is in Go. Open to ideas. Thank you.
If your purpose is plain simply to upload a file which can handle by backend service than Gatsby is good enough assuming you have other content pages which will benefit from faster page loads for those Headless CMS driven pages. But if you have more logical/functional aspects like deciding content/personalization at server side of web application than choose NextJS.
I have experience with Hugo and Next.js, but not with Gatsby. I would go with Next.js. However, I used Astro for my last project, so I would recommend Astro. Astro is much faster and you can use almost any frontend framework if you need to.
As a Frontend Developer I wanted something simple to generate static websites with technology I am familiar with. GatsbyJS was in the stack I am familiar with, does not need any other languages / package managers and allows quick content deployment in pure HTML or Markdown (what you prefer for a project). It also does not require you to understand a theming engine if you need a custom design.
Pros of Hugo
- Lightning fast47
- Single Executable29
- Easy setup26
- Great development community24
- Open source23
- Write in golang13
- Not HTML only - JSON, RSS8
- Hacker mindset8
- LiveReload built in7
- Gitlab pages integration4
- Easy to customize themes4
- Very fast builds4
- Well documented3
- Fast builds3
- Easy to learn3
Pros of Wintersmith
- Easy setup1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Hugo
- No Plugins/Extensions4
- Template syntax not friendly2
- Quick builds1
Cons of Wintersmith
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Hugo?
What is Wintersmith?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Hugo?
What companies use Wintersmith?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Hugo?
What tools integrate with Wintersmith?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+22