@gldev posted this question on Glitter.
It’s an interesting question.
So, big sites want to know if other big sites are using it, as a benchmark for how good a fit it is. For really big sites, I guess Hugo is the only static site generator for the impatient – but, if you have decided that static is a good fit, I believe there are more important key benchmarks to consider when evaluating the risk of going with Hugo for your new site:
- The lock-in will be minimal with any static site generator, compared to, say, the software driving the bank’s ledger system. If your are pretty sure, that may be plenty.
- With Go’s static linked binary you’ll also get stability (and speed!) – if you version control your binary (maybe on a few different platforms to be really paranoid), you should be able to build the different versions of your your site for the next centuries …
- Hugo is 0.14, but I will still consider it pretty stable – and will be even more so going for 1.0 – and is maintained by some very experienced developers (hey, even experienced developers make mistakes!).
I’m slightly biased – but if the “going static” is a decision already made: Hugo is as an obvious top alternative, even for big, commercial sites.