When comparing Hugo vs Harp, the Slant community recommends Hugo for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Hugo is ranked 3rd while Harp is ranked 24th. The most important reason people chose Hugo is:
Code can be viewed [on GitHub](http://github.com/spf13/hugo).
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Open-source and free
Code can be viewed on GitHub.
Pro Single Binary - Cross Platform
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 Clean workflow
Create your new site, run the Hugo server, edit. Lather, rinse, repeat. Hugo stays out of the way.
Pro Good documentation
Pro Many themes available
Pro Draft mode
Allows you to see changes in real time.
Pro Very active community
Pro Easy to add new content types, data files, and taxonomies
Pro Compiles assets on request
Rather than regenerate the whole site when a file changes, Harp only reloads what is necessary, keeping the compile time fast.
Pro Supports popular languages
Harp supports a large variety of languages, including Jade, CoffeeScript, Stylus and Sass. See the full list here.
Con No tutorial on how to create a theme from scratch
Con Limited extensibility
There are no plugins available to extend the functionality or language support of Harp.