Jekyll and Hyde Hugo Link to heading

As I’ve been settling back into the development world, one of the most interesting trends I’ve encountered is the resurgence of static websites. But these aren’t the basic HTML and CSS sites of the early web; static site generators like Hugo and Jekyll have revolutionised how we think about building fast, secure, and maintainable websites.

Why Static Sites Are Making a Comeback Link to heading

The pendulum has swung back towards static sites for several compelling reasons. After years of increasingly complex web applications with server-side rendering, databases, and content management systems, developers are rediscovering the benefits of pre-built HTML files.

Static sites are incredibly fast; there’s no database queries or server-side processing at runtime. They’re also much more secure since there’s no dynamic code execution or database to compromise. And with modern CDNs, they can be distributed globally with minimal effort.

Jekyll: The GitHub Favourite Link to heading

Jekyll was my first foray into static site generators, primarily because of its tight integration with GitHub Pages. Written in Ruby, Jekyll has a mature ecosystem and excellent documentation. The liquid templating system feels familiar if you’ve worked with other template engines.

What impressed me most about Jekyll was how it handles blog-style content. The built-in support for posts, categories, and pagination makes it trivial to set up a technical blog. The fact that GitHub Pages builds and deploys Jekyll sites automatically is incredibly convenient for personal projects.

# _config.yml example
title: "My Development Blog"
description: "Thoughts on software development"
url: "https://username.github.io"
markdown: kramdown
highlighter: rouge

The learning curve is gentle, especially if you’re already comfortable with HTML and CSS. You can start with the default theme and gradually customise it as you learn more about the system.

Hugo: Speed and Flexibility Link to heading

Hugo, written in Go, positions itself as “the world’s fastest framework for building websites.” After using both Jekyll and Hugo, I can confirm that Hugo’s build speeds are genuinely impressive. What takes Jekyll several seconds to build, Hugo accomplishes in milliseconds.

The templating system in Hugo is more powerful than Jekyll’s, though it has a steeper learning curve. The Go template syntax can feel foreign at first, but it’s incredibly flexible once you get comfortable with it.

{{ range .Pages }}
  <article>
    <h2><a href="{{ .Permalink }}">{{ .Title }}</a></h2>
    <time>{{ .Date.Format "2 January 2006" }}</time>
    <p>{{ .Summary }}</p>
  </article>
{{ end }}

Hugo’s content organisation is also more sophisticated. The concept of content types and sections allows for complex site structures while maintaining clean, logical organisation.

The JAMstack Philosophy Link to heading

Both generators embody what’s become known as the JAMstack; JavaScript, APIs, and Markdown. This approach decouples the frontend from backend services, allowing for better performance, easier scaling, and improved developer experience.

With services like Netlify and Vercel offering seamless deployment from Git repositories, the entire workflow from writing content to having it live on the web has become incredibly streamlined. Push to Git, and your site rebuilds and deploys automatically.

Real-World Applications Link to heading

I’ve been experimenting with both generators for different types of projects:

  • Personal blogs: Jekyll’s built-in blog features make it perfect for straightforward technical blogging
  • Documentation sites: Hugo’s flexibility and speed make it excellent for project documentation
  • Portfolio sites: Both work well, though Hugo’s asset pipeline and image processing give it an edge for media-heavy sites

Choosing Between Them Link to heading

The choice between Jekyll and Hugo often comes down to specific needs:

Choose Jekyll if you want GitHub Pages integration, prefer Ruby/Liquid templating, or need the extensive plugin ecosystem.

Choose Hugo if build speed is crucial, you want maximum flexibility in site structure, or you’re comfortable with Go templates.

The Broader Impact Link to heading

Static site generators represent a broader shift towards simpler, more maintainable web architecture. They’ve made it possible for developers to build sophisticated websites without the complexity of traditional content management systems.

The rise of headless CMS solutions that integrate with static sites has addressed the main limitation of static generators; making it easy for non-technical users to manage content. Services like Contentful, Sanity, and Forestry bridge this gap perfectly.

Looking Forward Link to heading

As I continue exploring modern web development practices, static site generators have become an essential tool in my toolkit. They’ve changed how I think about building websites; prioritising performance, security, and maintainability over dynamic features that many sites don’t actually need.

The ecosystem around static sites continues to evolve rapidly. New generators like Nuxt (Vue-based) and Vite-powered solutions are bringing component-based development to static sites, while keeping the core benefits of pre-built HTML.

For anyone building content-heavy websites or documentation, static site generators deserve serious consideration. They represent the best of modern web development: fast, secure, and maintainable.

Have you experimented with static site generators? What drew you to them, and how do they fit into your development workflow?