|
|
|
|
|
|
by WnZ39p0Dgydaz1
2249 days ago
|
|
|
Some of it is due to the language and the general JS tooling being bloated and slow. However, in many cases build time is slow because you're doing something that's slow, like calling a REST API. You are not going to generate 10k pages in 2sec if you need to make 10k REST requests, each taking 100ms, to a remote API to fetch the data for your pages. This kind of "data integration" from various sources is a standard use cases for site generators like gatsby and next.js. It seems like what this is targeting is smarter caching to avoid such expensive calls when possible. Hugo is different in that it basically just transforms local HTML/Templates/Markdown. That's always fast. Even JS can handle that. |
|
|
Do you know of any benchmarks that show that? As far as I know, most static site generators can take minutes to process a few thousand Markdown files with Hugo being the exception.