DEV Community

Tyler Smith
Tyler Smith

Posted on • Updated on

My Impressions of Hugo as a WordPress Developer

I became a freelance web developer two years ago, and after getting a few clients I built a site for my freelance WordPress development business. I get most of my business from referrals, so I only spent a few hours building the one-page site as a single HTML file with CSS inlined in the <head> tag.

In the time since I built my business site, I've completed dozens of projects. I wanted to expand my site to show them off, but I could never find the motivation to migrate it to WordPress. I was dreading all of the tiny steps:

  1. Setting up a local WordPress environment.
  2. Installing all of my go-to WordPress plugins and adding my licenses.
  3. Setting up the plugin boilerplate and ACF fields for custom content types.
  4. Building a custom theme that matched my brand for all the WordPress templates.
  5. Auditing all the WordPress settings.
  6. Configuring Yoast SEO to noindex all the low-value auto-generated WordPress pages (categories and tags, etc).
  7. FTPing everything to the server (I'm using cheap shared hosting).
  8. Bouncing the database to the server.
  9. Updating the wp-config.php file info to point to the new database.
  10. Replacing the local URL with the production URL across all tables in the database.
  11. Re-entering my plugin licenses.
  12. Manually checking the live site to make sure nothing broke.

WordPress is an incredible platform that has paid most of my bills for the past two years. However, its configuration is tedious and I don't feel inspired to go through all the trouble for a site that might get 5 hits on a good day.

I wanted my site to have the following:

  • A home page
  • An about page
  • A portfolio list page and single portfolio item page
  • A contact page

Hugo and Static Site Generators

I had been hearing about static site generators for over a year, so I decided I'd give one a try.

Static site generators use template and content files to generate static HTML pages for an entire site. Sites build with these generators load super fast because there is no backend data processing when you hit the server, and they're super secure because theses sites have no backend.

After comparing several static site generators, I picked Hugo, and by the next day I had deployed a humble 3-page Hugo site to Netlify (a hosting service that specializes in static sites).

Even with Hugo and Netlify's learning curve, the site took about the same amount of time it would have taken to build with WordPress. Importantly, I got to skip all 12 WordPress steps I listed above.

Here are my thoughts on Hugo as a WordPress developer.

Hugo's Separation of Concerns Feels Good

This probably sounds weird, but a lot of times when working in WordPress, the separation of concerns feels awfully separated.

  • Sublime Text for editing code.
  • Terminal for compiling Scss.
  • MAMP PRO for running the server.
  • WordPress for editing content, managing the media library, editing nav menus, defining fields in ACF, and editing site configuration.
  • Sequel Pro for managing the database.

That's an awful lot of separate tools to manage the same project.

With Hugo, you can use a much smaller toolset:

  • Sublime Text for editing code, editing content, managing media, editing nav menus, defining fields, and editing site configuration.
  • Terminal for running the server and compiling Scss using the hugo server command. Terminal is also used for creating new pages.

I love having less things to look at. It helps keep me focused.

Hugo + Markdown Makes Editing Content Pleasant

Let's start with this: HTML is a verbose language for writing content. WordPress uses a WYSIWYG editor to try to mitigate HTML's verbosity. The WordPress editor can sometimes do wonky stuff, and oftentimes unwanted HTML comes along for the ride when you copy-and-paste from another source.

Markdown fixes that. Without going into too much detail, here's what markdown looks like:

# Heading 1
## Heading 2

This is a paragraph.

* This is an unordered list.
* Isn't it cool?

1. This is an ordered list.
2. This is the second item in an unordered list.

[this is a link](
![this is an image, and inside these brackets is the alt text](
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Because it is plain text, you can copy-and-paste markdown between Google Docs and your text editor with confidence: markdown will render correctly.

If you want to learn more about markdown, check out this markdown cheatsheet.

Hugo Makes URL Structure and Media Management Painless

With Hugo, you create your page structure in the /content/ folder, so if you had /content/, it would show up on your site as This is way easier than wrestling with the WordPress Rewrite API.

You could also store the same page at /content/team/ This creates something called a page bundle in the /content/team/ folder, which allows you to keep all the assets for the page in the same directory. You could create /content/team/person1.png then call the image in the markdown by typing ![Person 1's Face](person1.png).

Compare this to the WordPress media library: WordPress essentially treats every file you have like it's in one big folder, making assets incredibly difficult to find on large sites.

Hugo's Templating System is Easy to Understand

As a WordPress developer, I have the WordPress Template Hierarchy Chart set as the background on my computer because it's complicated and difficult to memorize.

Hugo's templating system is much easier to understand, and it only has a few kinds of commonly-used templates. Here's the rundown of Hugo's templates to the best of my understanding:

  • List template (list.html)
  • Single template (single.html)
  • Homepage (index.html)
  • 404 (404.html)

List templates are pages that list other pages (think Single templates display a single resource ( Homepage and 404 templates are self-explanatory.

When you create a theme for Hugo (by the way: Hugo has themes, much like WordPress), you have a /layouts/defaults/ folder in your theme for templates that all content will use by default. For example, /layouts/defaults/single.html will be used for all pages that display a single resource (an individual blog page, individual team member page, individual portfolio item page, etc).

However, let's say you have a "services" content type (/content/services/) and you want the single page to use a different template. You can create /layouts/services/single.html and it will override the default template. I find the Hugo template hierarchy much easier to understand than WordPress.

Hugo uses a wrapper file called baseof.html, where you can add markup for headers and footers so you don't have to manually include them in every template the way you would in WordPress. You can also have a different baseof.html for your different content types by using the appropriate folder structure (/layouts/services/baseof.html). And like other templating languages, Hugo also allows you to include partials.

Hugo doesn't allow multi-level inheritance the way that Laravel Blade or Twig does, but Hugo is still plenty powerful.

Hugo Makes Defining Custom Fields Easy

As a WordPress developer, the Advanced Custom Fields plugin is my best friend, but it forces me to spend a lot of time in the browser clicking through its options.

At the top of every markdown file you create in Hugo is a block called front matter, and it's used to specify meta-data about the post.

By default, front matter in Hugo looks like this:

title: "Blog writing is fun!"
date: 2019-02-13T21:01:46-08:00
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Let's say I wanted to add a custom field to this post. I can literally just add it on the next line.

title: "Blog writing is fun!"
date: 2019-02-13T21:01:46-08:00
newField: "HELLO WORLD!"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

It's actually that easy.

Now, you probably want to make sure that every content type has the same set of fields. You can do that using archetypes. An archetype is a predefined set of front matter that populates when you run the hugo new content/path/to/ in terminal to create a new page.

If I wanted to add custom front matter for an author in my blog content type (in my /content/blog/ folder), I'd create a new file called /archetypes/ that had the following:

title: "{{ replace .Name "-" " " | title }}"
date: {{ .Date }}
author: "Tyler Smith"
draft: true

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

With this, every time I create a new blog post from the terminal it will populate with the new fields.

The down side to this YAML-based front matter approach is you don't get the data validation that ACF gives you.

Hugo Has Lots of Cool Features

In addition to what I've already spelled out, I want to mention a few other features:

  • Hugo's server automatically refreshes when you save your project, meaning what's in your browser reflects your project's current state accurately.
  • Hugo can run your Sass tasks and will automatically refresh the page on save.
  • Hugo can automatically generate scaled images on the fly, and only generates them for the sizes your site uses.
  • Support for taxonomies is baked into Hugo 😲
  • Hugo has hundreds of free third-party themes available.
  • You can override theme files from third-party themes, much like child themes allow you to do in WordPress.
  • A sitemap.xml file is generated by Hugo automatically at build time.
  • If you use Netlify for hosting, you can have your site rebuilt and deployed automatically as soon as you push to the remote of your master Git branch. This means you can always keep your local and production environment synced.

Getting my site up with Hugo was a great experience, but it wasn't quite painless. Here are the challenges I ran into:

Go Templating Feels Very Foreign to Me

Hugo uses Go templating from the Go programming language. Go was invented by giga-nerds at Google who were trying to make a faster programming language. You can see their work paid off when you use Hugo: even huge sites can compile almost instantly.

That being said, Go templates just feel really strange to me.

In almost every language I've used, evaluating an expression looks something like if ($a == $b). In Hugo, the same thing would be if eq $a $b.

Especially when testing multiple expressions, this can start to look weird. Here's an expression from my site's header file:

{{ if or (and (not .Draft) (not (.Param "hidden"))) (.Site.IsServer) }}
    Do stuff...
{{ end }}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The double curly braces just indicate that Go template code is being run.

Also, every logic block ends with end.

Assignment looks weird too! Look at this: $a := 22.

I'm sure there are good reasons for this odd syntax, and it's not necessarily bad: these are just my impressions of Go templating as a WordPress developer.

Hugo Has Less Resources Than WordPress When You Get Stuck

Hugo has great documentation, but it doesn't cover everything. There's a lot of Go templating that's used in the docs that isn't thoroughly explained. This is reasonable: it isn't a framework's job to teach you core programming concepts of a language. But if you're coming in totally unfamiliar with Go like I did, you'll need to do some extra work to get up to speed.

Since it's not nearly as widely used as WordPress, Google's search results won't be quite as helpful when you get stuck. Plan to spend some time experimenting as you learn Hugo.

I Don't Understand Scope or Context In Go

There's a dot (looks like this: .) in Hugo that's the keeper of all data and determines you have access to.

I don't really understand how it works. It's definitely a core concept of Hugo, but I'm still only getting a feel for it.

I found an article that helped me understand how the dot and scoping in Hugo works. If you're learning Hugo and the dot confuses you, I'd start your reading here.

Final Thoughts

I love Hugo and I'll probably keep my freelance web development site on Hugo for years. Being able to do so much inside my text editor is ideal, and because I'm using Netlify's auto-deployment, the content on my local copy is always the same as the content on the production server. The production server is also lightening fast because there's no server-side processing happening to generate the page.

That being said, I don't see myself using Hugo on a client's site: the learning curve that would be required for a client to use Hugo feels too high. Netlify has a CMS that integrates with Hugo, but for most projects I don't feel like the cost/benefit makes sense.

If you're a WordPress developer, it may be worth considering moving your personal site or blog to Hugo for the sheer convenience and benefits I outlined in this post. That being said, I don't think you'll jump platforms and become a full time Hugo developer.

There are also PHP-based static site generators available such as Jigsaw by Tighten. If you're a WordPress/PHP developer, it may be worth checking out Jigsaw to skip the Hugo learning curve and take advantage of Blade templating.

If you want to learn Hugo, I recommend watching Giraffe Academy's Hugo YouTube Course.

Top comments (15)

realb12 profile image
René Baron • Edited

For we have been evaluating server solutions for single source publishing for cross-platform web, ebooks, PDF, print, newsletter etc., and haven discovered, that HUGO is a full blown development environment, that is great for doing this - especially for performance reasons (eGov sites have thousands of pages).
So I am no longer convinced that HUGO is for personal use and small sites only, but has everything to go large-scale enterprise levels with the right experts in place.
So, as a CTO, my primary concerns are speed (generation time and response time), security and having stuff under control. On all 3 Wordpress is falling behind and no cure in sight to get it better.
Maybe our requirements are beyond what normally Wordpress or HUGO are used for. However, my point here is, that the only reason why HUGO is mostly used as a homegrown geek-CMS, is because there is not much effort around to provide enterprise grade support in terms of workshops, events, marketing, consulting etc.
However, the potential to go this route is there.
Hugo is a Ferrari in the garage. It just requires someone to build the highways and do the advertisement for a next level adventure!!

andreseduardop profile image
andreseduardop • Edited

An important opinion from experience. Thanks, René.
I agree with the need for a business approach supported by Hugo.
It is important to raise this issue with bep.

tylerlwsmith profile image
Tyler Smith

Hugo is a great tool. For the kinds of sites that I build it typically isn't the best tool for the job, but if you have the right technical resources in place it could be a great fit!

jedidrew42 profile image
Drew Norman

I do love Hugo but when your trying to post blogs and resize images and speed to publish WP by far is best solution especially for NON tech users. Which brings me to this question we are migrating all of our hugo sites to Wordpress and I cant find a good resource for doing this. I know if I can compile all Hugo to Json in a file dump I can use a WP plugin to move Json into WP posts and pages. Happy easter all.

tylerlwsmith profile image
Tyler Smith

There's probably a tool for this, but I've never encountered it. I have a couple of rarely-touched sites I've built using Hugo, but it isn't an everyday tool for me.

I think Hugo is great for small sites where the developer is the primary maintainer (blog/portfolio site/side project), or massive sites with a technical team that need the performance benefits of static sites. I'd be hesitant build any of my clients' sites with Hugo, however.

jedidrew42 profile image
Drew Norman

I just started using Netlify CMS and now making changes to my posts and page in Hugo is actually faster than making changes in Wordpress.

Thread Thread
tylerlwsmith profile image
Tyler Smith

That's great news!

andreseduardop profile image

I agree with most of your comments. It seems that we have had a similar experience in web development.
However, I differ in the recommendation. The LAMP architecture is improved by JAMstack - and depending on the client, the latter may turn out to be a better solution. Things are improving rapidly and Static Site Generators are getting friendlier and more powerful. They are not just an option for creating blogs.

awps profile image
Andrei Surdu

Ok You just got the wrong workflow for WordPress. Absolutely everything you note in this article can be done in WordPress with some automations set up in the right place.

IMO, you make this article intentionally complicated from the perspective of a WP developer.

tylerlwsmith profile image
Tyler Smith

I'm bummed that you think I went out of my way to make this post intentionally complicated. I do the best I can with writing, and I'm not perfect. I just want to share my experiences with people who might be interested.

philliprichdale profile image
Phillip Richdale

Fundamentally these days WordPress is an entire platform and Hugo is 'just' a CLI SSG. Big difference.

I've been programming for 35 years, doing non-trivial webwork for 20 years, helped kick off the Joomla project (among others) and built blogs, websites and larger applications with quite a few systems, including the ancestors of WP, b2cafelog and b2evolution (That last one still is around btw. Check it out. ... Flashback time! :-) ).

The thing that bugs me big time is that WP these days has a critical mass that other platforms wouldn't even dream of having but still carries around with it some bizarre legacy stuff including an app-model initially designed by people who couldn't code and shouldn't have been let near a keyboard. In that regard WP is just like quite a few other systems. The WP crew (aka Automattic) are in a bit of a jam, since they can't redo WP as they would like to without making a userbase of 100+ million people very angry. Admittedly, that is a strange luxury problem to have that others haven't encountered in that form yet. They did that mistake once with the Gutenberg project for the last major 5 update and are still doing quite a bit of damage control for that.

The huge upside of WP is that while it does have an amateur (i.e. basically non-existant) model, it doesn't force it on to you like other systems such as Drupal, Typo3 or Neos (shudder). Meaning you can basically do your own thing once you've learned how to tie in to WPs user/auth system and god-object "Post" model and two or three other things. Which all in all takes roughly 30 minutes and basic Google skills.

What I've also noticed about WP is that while it does in parts look like it was architected by 5th-graders on crack, there are some counter-intuitive things in WP that actually really make sense in a strange way. Example: Everything you can fiddle with is procedural. This seems bizarre, but once you notice that any wrong bit of code instantly results in a white screen of death you know that even the n00biest of n00bs will notice their bugs instantly. And that's actually a feature for WPs epic army of quasi-amateur plugin builders.

There is also quite a few things that WP does well by default. No flaky bolted on templating for instance. Templates/Themes are PHP (which is a templating engine in itself ... a detail roughly 350+ projects somehow fail to notice) and WPs helper functions, as it should be with a CMS. Child templates is PHP templating done correctly. And while the media manager doesn't have folders because "historic reasons", the default media handling is perfect for just about every project. And the updates media management has gotten other the years focused on automating stuff that really matters and that web-n00bs wouldn't even notice, such as image sizes and bundling. Well done, I have to admit.

What WP also has going for it is that it's the only system I've encountered that doesn't have people bursting into tears of despair when I ask them to use it to maintain their content. Maybe WP just was there at the right time, when the bloggosphere moved mainstream and every n00b wanted to post blogs and pictures online and needed a quick and easy way to do that. I don't know, I only know that WP does not expect anybody to understand relational models before they run into that problem themselves. And by then users usually already have tons of content on WP.

The head of WP, Matt Mullenweg, also has the habit of thouroughly looking out for larger trends in the webworker sphere and incorporating them as first-class citizens of WP. WP did that with jQuery some 8 years back or so and they did it with React for the Gutenberg/5.0 update. React is part of WP right now, meaning you don't even have to deploy it, you can just call the wrapper function wp_render() in the frontend and have all the ReactJS goodies the JamStack camp would want. Smart move IMHO, given that React is a critical part of the Gutenberg editor. A few versions down the road WP can change it's backend from PHP to Node or Deno if trends are heading that way and users wouldn't even notice.

Yet Hugo comes back to me every once in a while.

For larger projects and maintaining many clients at once I'm perpetually considering doing something different and the old-school "Dreamweaver 3" type SSGs like Hugo seem a good approach. However, that would need lot's of work that's already there and finished in WP, so I'm still on the edge.
And it's a fact that most of the web is dynamic for no good reason other than people not needing to install CM Systems on their local workplace. The thing that has me hesitant about Hugo is that it sorely lacks any sort of user friendly frontend for regular editors, expensive commercial services aside. One would have to build that and give the nature of Hugo it would have to tie in seamlessly with Git in a n00by-friendly way to make any sense for larger projects.

Extending WP to use proper Caching and SSG as a plugin (those exist) actually is a strong reason to stick to WP. It's only for agencies that want to build their own super-performant pipeline and move far beyond WP that diving into Hugo as a foundation for web content makes sense, AFAICT.

I'm on the edge about this and may have to do some tryouts for better judgement. But getting Hugo up to speed feature wise would take quite a bit of work. Can't tell just yet if that's worth it.

tylerlwsmith profile image
Tyler Smith

You've got some great insights here–this comment could be turned into an interesting blog post with all of the perspective you have on the industry! If you ever choose to write that, please link it here 🙂

I like Hugo quite a bit, but I don't think I'd ever use it for an end-client: it's too technical of a tool. I've use it for personal sites before, and I might again in the future. My biggest reservation with Static Site Generators in general is that once you want some dynamic features like form submissions, you either need to buy a SaaS product or set up a distributed architecture with an API server that handles those features. At that point, some kind of monolith seems simpler.

I have some pretty big reservations about WordPress's architecture, which I wrote about in the post linked below. That said, WordPress is still my platform of choice for building sites for non-technical clients. It's a pragmatic choice, whereas Hugo just isn't.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post!

akashkaintura profile image

Is Starting with gohugo is good for Junior Devs coming from PHP background and how is it the contender to the wordpress stagnant development?

tylerlwsmith profile image
Tyler Smith

Hugo is interesting as a static site generator, but I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than building a personal blog. WordPress has a lot of warts, but it's the most popular platform to learn for building content-driven websites.

ojacques profile image
Olivier Jacques

Thanks for this post, it was very insightful and has some good pointers. Thanks !