[drad]

Personally, I'd go with hugo as it is fast at generating but I've used nikola for years as it is python based (my prefered language). I'd recommend checking out https://www.staticgen.com/ as it tracks SSG's popularity and gives nice info. A SSG built on a language/platform you are comfortable with is always a plus as sometimes you just need to get under the hood and ti.ker with things.

[KajMagnus]

And for people who want "Hugo but written in Rust" or "Hugo but written in Javascript" — then, there's Zola (Rust): https://github.com/getzola/zola, and 11ty (Javascript): https://github.com/11ty/eleventy. (Or at least that's how I think about these two.)

[nicoburns]

Why would you want that? I generally prefer Rust or JavaScript over Go. But with a static site generator, you're not actually using the language at all, and Hugo has a much bigger ecosystem.

[mynegation]

Some people may want to tinker with the generator, write some plugins (if supported) or just see how it is built.

[DarthGhandi]

Exactly, I've tried a bunch and ended up with one written in a language I know absolutely nothing about.

Find it incredibly strange when people say ”static site generator written in X” as though it means anything to the end user.

And truly if compilation speed is actually of any importance to you as a blogger perhaps you are too big to be a "blogger".

There's no major static site generator out there that doesn't have enough customisation for well over 99% of users.

[armonraphiel]

Could be helpful when writing your own plugins or simplifying/speeding up what your CD server needs to do.

[nine_k]

Looking in the sources? Fixing a bug?

[heliodor]

Thank you for pointing out StaticGen. Now I can find the product built with technologies I know so that I can get stuff done quickly instead of learning the tools of the most popular product on that list.