In late August, a few weeks before the end of the summer vacation, I found myself with more free time, abundant energy, and a leisurely mood. Out of boredom, I browsed through my blog and discovered that the Great Firewall had blocked access to *.eu.org domains via the HTTP protocol. Consequently, I registered a new domain, brume.top, on Tencent Cloud. Since I had a new domain, I thought it might be a good opportunity to update the entire site. I scoured the internet for Typecho themes but found few that satisfied me. I had previously considered creating my own theme, but my ambitions far exceeded my skills—the layouts I designed were so poor that even I couldn’t bear to look at them. This led me to consider abandoning Typecho altogether. After browsing countless blogs from my bookmarks, I settled on Hugo.

The world’s fastest framework for building websites — Hugo is one of the most popular open-source static site generators. With its blazing speed and flexibility, Hugo makes building websites fun again.

Translated from the Hugo official website

Hugo and Typecho are fundamentally different. They represent typical examples of static site generators and dynamic blogging platforms, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. (The following section is partially summarized by AI and written based on my personal experiences.)

Speed

• Hugo: This is Hugo’s proudest feature. As a static site generator, Hugo’s performance completely outshines Typecho. Hugo generates pure static HTML files, meaning visitors don’t need to wait for dynamic content generation or backend-frontend interactions, resulting in extremely fast loading speeds.
• Typecho: It lags slightly in this aspect. As a dynamic blogging system based on PHP and MySQL, every visit requires fetching data from the database and generating the corresponding page. For small personal blogs, if we disregard resources like images or fonts, the difference in loading speed between the two is minimal and practically negligible.

Maintenance

• Hugo: Once Hugo generates static pages, no server-side PHP or database support is needed—just deploy and you’re done. Generally, after deployment, the site requires no backend maintenance; it only needs to be hosted on a static server. Common hosting providers include GitHub Pages, Netlify, and Vercel, as mentioned in Hugo’s documentation.
• Typecho: It requires server support for PHP and a database, meaning ongoing maintenance of the server environment is necessary during use.Configuration and Maintenance. Regular backups and updates of the server environment and database are required. I once accidentally deleted a database, and the best way to prevent such disasters is to back up the database regularly.

Scalability

• Hugo: Hugo is essentially a static site generator, so its support for dynamic plugins is relatively limited. Overall, it is not as flexible as dynamic blogging systems.
• Typecho: Typecho supports functionality extensions via plugins. However, compared to other mainstream dynamic blogging systems, its plugin ecosystem is relatively small, offering fewer options.

Development Efficiency

• Hugo: Built with Go, Hugo generates websites extremely quickly. The development and generation process is also highly automated, relying on configuration files and Markdown syntax, making it simple and efficient.
• Typecho: Installation and configuration are much simpler than Hugo. However, as a dynamic system, it requires handling server and database-related issues during daily operations, which is not a concern with Hugo.

SEO Friendliness

• Hugo: As a static site generator, Hugo pre-generates all pages, making it SEO-friendly with fast loading speeds and better search engine compatibility. However, since pages are not dynamically generated, access control is more challenging and typically relies on CDNs, reverse proxies, or custom frontend implementations.
• Typecho: Plugins or custom development can enable advanced features like access control and permission management. Additionally, dynamic content allows for user-behavior-based functionalities such as personalized recommendations and login systems.

Security

• Hugo: Since it generates static pages with no backend or database, the risk of attacks is virtually nonexistent, offering extremely high security.
• Typecho: As a dynamic system, it involves PHP code execution and database operations, requiring attention to server and software security updates. Poor-quality plugins may also introduce vulnerabilities.

Learning Curve

• Hugo: While generating static sites is relatively straightforward, Hugo’s learning curve can be steep, especially for deployment, theme customization, shortcode usage, and advanced configuration.
• Typecho: Its admin interface and features are intuitive, making it beginner-friendly. Basic website setup and management require little to no coding knowledge.

Content Management

• Hugo: Hugo manages content through Markdown files, which is efficient for developers but may be less convenient for non-technical users who prefer a visual editor.### Hugo vs. Typecho: A Detailed Comparison

Hugo and Typecho are two distinct blogging platforms, differing significantly in their technical implementations and usage scenarios. Below is a detailed comparison between the two:

1. Technical Architecture

• Hugo: A static site generator (SSG) written in Go. It converts Markdown files into static HTML pages, eliminating the need for a database or server-side scripting.
• Typecho: A dynamic blogging system based on PHP and MySQL (or SQLite). It generates pages dynamically upon user requests.

2. Performance

• Hugo: Since it generates static HTML files, loading speed is extremely fast, making it highly efficient for high-traffic scenarios.
• Typecho: As a dynamic system, it requires PHP and database queries to render pages, resulting in slower performance, especially under heavy traffic.

3. Deployment and Maintenance

• Hugo:
  • No need for a database or PHP environment.
  • Hosting is simple—just upload static files to any web server (e.g., GitHub Pages, Netlify, Vercel).
  • No server maintenance required (no PHP or MySQL updates).
• Typecho:
  • Requires a PHP environment and a database (MySQL/SQLite).
  • Server configuration and maintenance (e.g., PHP version updates, database optimization) are necessary.
  • More complex to deploy compared to Hugo.

4. Security

• Hugo: Since it generates static files, there are no backend vulnerabilities (e.g., SQL injection, XSS attacks).
• Typecho: Being a dynamic system, it faces potential security risks (e.g., PHP exploits, database attacks). Regular updates and security patches are required.

5. Extensibility (Plugins & Themes)

• Hugo:
  • Supports themes and shortcodes for customization.
  • No plugin system, but integrates well with third-party tools (e.g., Algolia for search).
  • The ecosystem is smaller compared to dynamic CMS platforms.
• Typecho:
  • Supports plugins and themes, offering greater flexibility.
  • The plugin ecosystem is more mature than Hugo’s, though not as extensive as WordPress.

6. Content Management

• Hugo:
  • Content is managed via Markdown files.
  • Editing requires local file changes and deployment via Git or similar tools.
  • Best suited for developers or tech-savvy users.
• Typecho:
  • Provides a web-based admin panel for editing, publishing, and managing content directly in the browser.
  • More user-friendly for non-technical users or those accustomed to dynamic blogging systems.

Conclusion

Hugo holds advantages over Typecho in the following aspects:

• Performance: Dynamic sites are slower, especially under high traffic.
• Maintenance Complexity: Relies on PHP and a database, requiring more server configuration and upkeep.
• Extensibility (Weaker Plugin Support): While plugins are available, the ecosystem is less robust than mainstream dynamic systems.
• Security: Being dynamic, it carries higher security risks compared to static site generators.

If you prioritize speed, simplicity, and security, Hugo is the better choice.
If you prefer ease of use, dynamic features, and plugin support, Typecho may be more suitable.