> I am using Hugo,2 a static website generator, to generate, well, static HTML files.
Many people think it's a binary option of handwriting HTML vs using WordPress, but with a static site generator you get the advantage of both. I think static site generator are still exiting technology. Also companies are still sending Word-files to each other, while you are using git, and the web to publish, so you are still 30 years ahead of the rest - who are trying to get ahead by taking short-cuts like jumping on the latest hype train.
> Many people think it's a binary option of handwriting HTML vs using WordPress…
It's worth noting that one can handwrite HTML for WordPress themes and emit static sites from WordPress. This is a great option for those who like SSGs but want rich content management.
> Also companies are still sending Word-files to each other, while you are using git, and the web to publish, so you are still 30 years ahead of the rest...
Word + track changes is way more sophisticated and powerful than sending around text files with Git.
The reason companies use Word is not just because they don't understand how to use Git, it's because Word is actually very powerful in its own right and contains a powerful version control system which allows you to add annotations and make reviews. It's kind of like having Git + GitHub built into one program.
Many people think it's a binary option of handwriting HTML vs using WordPress, but with a static site generator you get the advantage of both. I think static site generator are still exiting technology. Also companies are still sending Word-files to each other, while you are using git, and the web to publish, so you are still 30 years ahead of the rest - who are trying to get ahead by taking short-cuts like jumping on the latest hype train.