Fossil SCM vs Hugo
When comparing Fossil SCM vs Hugo, the Slant community recommends Hugo for most people. In the question“What are the best solutions for a personal blog?” Hugo is ranked 5th while Fossil SCM is ranked 25th. The most important reason people chose Hugo is:
Code can be viewed [on GitHub](http://github.com/spf13/hugo).
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro All in one
While most other platforms allow either online blogging, or development offline and hosting on some other platform, fossil allows you to develop locally, host it locally, view it locally, and you can substitue locally with remote if you want to.
It's just one file. Fossil.
Pro Free
It is. It is also free as in libre, as in the license is similar (or equivilant) to BSD-2
Pro Simple to use
Fossil doesn't depend on a specific language to be present on the target or development system. Just write, commit, and done.
Pro Open-source and free
Code can be viewed on GitHub.
Pro Single Binary - Cross Platform
Pro Fast
Pro No dependencies
All other SSGs expect you to have a full toolchain setup for their language. Hugo is written in Go and distributed as an executable for unix, linux, windows and mac. Just download and run.
Pro Flexible
Pro Clean workflow
Create your new site, run the Hugo server, edit. Lather, rinse, repeat. Hugo stays out of the way.
Pro Very active community
Pro Draft mode
Allows you to see changes in real time.
Pro Good documentation
Pro Many themes available
Pro Easy to add new content types, data files, and taxonomies
Cons
Con You have to do everything manually and know what you're doing
It is similar to the "Writing your own solution" option