We have a client that currently has a newspaper site backed by Wordpress. They’re having a number of issues and would like to have the entire site redone, including design.
Is there a reason for not wanting to use Hugo for a project of this kind? The only dynamic aspect of the site is comments. Classifieds and jobs sections are populated from a third-party.
All responses will be highly appreciated.
p.s. - We are proficient in Go!
Hugo is well suited for newspaper/magazine site. It’s shockingly fast and can handle large numbers of articles very easily. There are options for comments. Discus works very nicely for me. You could pull in classifieds, too. Google Ads and any similar service would fit in easily.
You don’t need to know Go to use hugo. You’ll have to understand how to set up “front matter” and templates, but those are common concepts. Hugo doesn’t make you jump through hoops. And that live reload feature makes tweaking your content very easy.
There are many good reasons to go with static site generators (speed, security …)
For article writing I would say nothing beats the flow of writing in plain text and the real, live preview (via Hugo’s live preload) in the browser. And a recent bug fix handles soft reloading of CSS and image changes. This is how WYSIWYG should work.
I’m not sure how it would scale to the editor staff of, say, New York Times – but since the content is all files, I guess it is not that hard to build tooling around it (GitHub, pull reguests?) for approvals etc, setting up continious build to publish future content etc. Hugo’s single binary install would make it easy to set up on the editors’ computers.
If you come from WP I would say go ahead. The challenges of being all static is well worth tackling. And static isn’t all that static, either, if you have a dynamic backend (providing some JSON REST API).
And knowing Go is a plus; pull requests are the fastest way of fixing bugs and adding missing features.
Thanks guys. Truly appreciate the responses.
Sitemap protocol has limitation of 50000 links in one sitemap file. And it is better to gzip each sitemap file. This must be solved for big sites. And probably it is better to use Centos 7 to generate big sites. Centos 7 uses XFS by default.