Harp VS Hugo

Harp

E.g. Hugo-academic has Microdata RDF (Go) Templates; and supports Markdown, Jupiter, LaTeX: https://github.com/wowchemy/starter-hugo-academic

"Build pages from data source" https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/issues/5074

Hugo is the fastest static site generator out there, and it’s past time we celebrated it, as well as the developers, agencies and contributors who make the most of it.

I've been looking at replacing my project's website with Hugo (https://gohugo.io). Rather than generating a web page dynamically every time someone comes to your site, you generate the entire website statically whenever you change something. That means hosting can be entirely a "dumb" web server (or a "dumb" web server + apis which feed info to javascript, if you really need it). It also means:

* you can keep everything in version control to roll things back

* content can be fed to it programmatically

* project members can send pull request to post content, rather than requiring a special account

I've only gone through some examples from a book so far, but it looks pretty powerful, and is has good recommendations from others in the community.

I don't (yet) have a personal web presence, but if I do, it will definitely be something like Hugo.

And https://gohugo.io

Reading the commit message:

You already know Hugo. It’s one of the most popular static site generators in the world, because of its optimized build speeds, built-in templates for SEO, analytics, commenting (and more!), and its flexibility for developers. But while frontend developers will usually be the ones who build and set up new Hugo websites, they’re far from the only people who use Hugo on a day-to-day basis. In fact, most content and marketing teams will spend more time adding, removing, and tweaking website content than a site’s developer will. (This is another reason Hugo’s blistering fast build speeds are vitally important for production sites which see a lot of content changes.)