When comparing Hugo vs GNU Make, the Slant community recommends Hugo for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Hugo is ranked 4th while GNU Make is ranked 19th. 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 Uses the full power of the UNIX shell
Make takes advantage of the powerful UNIX shell, using it at it's full potential. STDIN and STDOUT are especially useful because of their versatility.
Pro No need for wrapper modules
Other build tools need wrapper modules to do certain tasks. The biggest disadvantage of these wrapper modules is that they bind you to a version of that tool. With Make you don't have that problem, there's no need for wrappers and no tools to bind you to a version, you can use any version of Make that you want.
Pro Works with more than just node.js
Since it's written in C and can be found in all UNIX-based systems it can be used on platforms other than node.js.
Con No tutorial on how to create a theme from scratch
Con Doesn't run on Windows by default
Make requires Cygwin/msys2/MinGW to run on Windows.