News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Static Website Generators. Parent comment

Re:Static Website Generators by rodgerd on Monday September 19, 2016 @05:19AM (#12529997)
> It is optimized for speed (Hugo sites can be built in milliseconds)

I suspect it's based on a minimal set of test cases, not a full site. With hundreds of pages mine takes anything from 30 seconds to a couple of minutes to build.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Static Website Generators by guitarbill on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @11:27AM (#12540236)
As with everything, this is a huge oversimplification (i.e. Go = faster than scripting languages). I'm dubious if the algorithmic part of static site generators dominates. Would have though it's I/O bounded to some degree, in which case Go isn't going to be faster than anything else.

Besides, caching solves this issue better, unless you change the underlying templates.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Static Website Generators by Diti on Monday September 19, 2016 @08:11AM (#12530698)
Are you using the syntax highlighting (i.e. Pygments) feature? It significantly raises the generation time.
[ Parent | on HN ]