I’m encountering more and more so-called “full stack web developers” who can’t write, read, or debug plain HTML and CSS. They can’t write Javascript from scratch either, even for simple things. I can stop worrying about getting left behind in the world of web development for another decade, I think. Our “stacks” are now Jenga towers.

"Everyone uses this now" and "make the program work on every device" consequence.

They forgot that web is already providing compatibility and matureness for longer.

Definitely agree with the sentiment of plain HTML+CSS being best for static blogs, but I've found value in using a static site generator for any "production" HTML site where the small overhead of a tool is justified because it provides some minor quality-of-life features.

A few things that I've encountered in the past that Hugo solves:

- Page links breaking and requiring rework if you change your site layout.

- Standardizing link formatting, including trailing slashes.

- Editing headers/footers.

- Dynamically deploying separate development & production environments, so teams can preview changes before releasing.

- "Draft" mode, to turn on/off pages without moving or deleting the file.

All of these things you could do by hand, but having them handled automatically makes it less likely that you'll make a mistake. That said, the way I've used Hugo on several projects is pretty similar to your philosophy: Most of the content (index page, styles) is hand-written HTML/CSS, and Hugo is just used to format generic pages and links.

I agree that if you are ready to spend a non-zero amount of tooling overhead, then Hugo brings the benefits that you describe.

Your labs page is overfitting on a small screen.

What do you mean by overfitting? The layout is responsive, with the number of columns adjusting to the screen width

Now it's working. The images were overscanning on left and right like I've never been seeing before.

OP here, feel free to leave comments