The question I’m asking myself as I resurrect this Hugo site: Is it worth it?
Static site generators are geeky, the language used to code Hugo – Go (aka
I could stick with the Perl-based Ode software I’ve been using for about five years at this point.
I have a lot “invested” in Ode, just like many bloggers have a lot invested in, say, WordPress. Despite my five years with Ode, I still have thousands of WordPress entries I’m considering moving onto whatever blogging system I end up using, which could be Ode. But I could just as as easily move into any static site generator.
One thing I want in my blogging software is a lot of development activity, extensive documentation and a large, engaged community. Hugo has all three of those.
The question is, will I ever be at the point where I will want or need to code in the blog engine’s programming language? In Ode I’ve used Perl to work on my add-in that counts posts (and that can generate a categories list, though it proved to be too unwieldy to display on the blog sidebar; I may create a custom page for it.)
But while I’m box-checking, Hugo is doing pretty well. But is it too geeky? Information on how to reliably add an image to a post is scant (and generally buried in forum posts), and that shows the geeky nature of the enterprise. I’m going to drop one in now using Markdown and see if the system adds any tagging.
Minutes later: I found out that you generally stash image files in the
/static directory that is generated when you use Hugo to create a site. On the advice of other Hugo users, I created a subdirectory called
/images. I learned pretty quickly that since this site serves on a subdirectory (the
http://stevenrosenberg.net/hugo, I had to add
/hugo to my relative path.