I’m not exactly sure how to say/ask this. When I started to learn about static website generators I found several different ones. I tried two. The first was gatsby. The more I learned about how it worked the more confused I got. So after a bit I decided to try another one. This time hugo. I started with the tutorials that are in the docs and that was really good stuff. As I went along it started making sense this time. I’m not downing gatsby I’m sure it is plenty good, but hugo made sense to me were as gastby did not. I keep wondering if if was because of the tutorials or maybe it was because the way hugo is designed or both? I was wondering what others peoples experiences were? Did any one else find hugo a better fit or more intuitive and if so why do you think that may be?
I have to admit I would like to learn go-lang now just to see if it makes just as much sense as hugo has seemed to make to me now. I’m just getting started and I know there is plenty yet to learn but it is very nice to feel like I can do this!
I think Hugo expects you have some basic knowledge about how a static site would be hand-made, and, is not very prescriptive. This lends itself, in my opinion, to success for self-starters who read things and read them again.
Starters need to know a lot about HTML, CSS, etc. Hugo is one tool to make the work.
Yes, RTFM 
but can we make a online Hugo book out of the docs and this community place? I’m not a English native, but I would join the party for translation.
Making it with Hugo can make Hugo better.
Now that you mention it I do know most all of that stuff. Perhaps I’m further along than I realized in my learning.
@ ju52 a good sticky would not go wrong even though documents already exist on the hugoio page.