[mattlondon]

So the tl;Dr is they have all of the complexity and bugs of a static site generator, and all of the complexity and bugs and security risks and runtime cost of a dynamic website too.

I think they missed the point of a static site generator: you "compile" your site once, and then you have static assets that never need any maintenance ever again (unless you decide to change something) and which can be served by anything, anywhere.

This approach seems to take the worst aspects of static site generators and dynamic sites and bundle them together: you now have a binary to maintain (that has to generate the HTML et al anyway) and you have the potential for security/other bugs and you now have extra CPU/RAM/IO load on your server and you need specific hosting that allows you to run your binary.

Don't get me wrong this is fun and all and nice that it works for the author, but I don't think it is a sensible way to make things simpler, more reliable, or easier maintain (the opposite in my mind).

I will agree that Hugo is terrible IME - so so so much complexity for very little benefit when compared to Jekyll et al.