<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Sulu on Kliku Kliku</title><link>https://klikukliku.dev/tags/sulu/</link><description>Recent content in Sulu on Kliku Kliku</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://klikukliku.dev/tags/sulu/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Hugo vs Sulu</title><link>https://klikukliku.dev/posts/hugo-vs-sulu/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://klikukliku.dev/posts/hugo-vs-sulu/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="introduction"&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this article, we will look at two tools that follow completely different philosophies: Hugo and Sulu. Both are open‑source solutions for building websites, but they solve problems in very different ways.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Let’s start with Hugo. It is a static site generator written in Go. Its main job is to transform source files into ready‑to‑serve HTML, CSS and JavaScript, which we can then host on any server. What really sets Hugo apart is its speed – site builds are extremely fast. The community around the project has been growing dynamically and has already gathered over eighty‑five thousand stars on GitHub. It is, however, a very developer‑centric tool. Content is edited mainly in Markdown files stored in a Git repository, and the publishing workflow is tightly coupled with version control.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>