Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times, especially for large sites
• Built-in asset pipeline for processing CSS, JS, and images
• More extensive theming system with easier customization

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve due to Go templating language
• Less flexibility in terms of data sources and processing
• More complex configuration for advanced features

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go templates):

{{ range .Pages }}
  <h2>{{ .Title }}</h2>
  {{ .Content }}
{{ end }}

Eleventy (Nunjucks):

{% for post in collections.posts %}
  <h2>{{ post.data.title }}</h2>
  {{ post.templateContent | safe }}
{% endfor %}

Both Hugo and Eleventy are popular static site generators, but they have different approaches. Hugo is known for its speed and built-in features, making it suitable for larger projects. Eleventy, on the other hand, offers more flexibility and a gentler learning curve, especially for developers familiar with JavaScript.

Hugo's Go-based templating can be challenging for newcomers, while Eleventy's use of various templating languages (like Nunjucks, Liquid, or even plain JavaScript) provides more options. However, Hugo's performance edge and comprehensive asset handling make it a strong choice for complex sites.

Ultimately, the choice between Hugo and Eleventy depends on project requirements, team expertise, and personal preferences.

Pros of Gatsby

• Rich ecosystem with a vast plugin library and themes
• Built-in GraphQL for efficient data querying and management
• Advanced performance optimizations like image processing and code splitting

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React or GraphQL
• Longer build times for large sites due to complex data processing
• Higher resource consumption and potential overhead for simpler projects

Code Comparison

Eleventy (Basic configuration):

module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
  return {
    dir: {
      input: "src",
      output: "dist"
    }
  };
};

Gatsby (Basic configuration):

module.exports = {
  siteMetadata: {
    title: `My Gatsby Site`,
  },
  plugins: [
    `gatsby-plugin-react-helmet`,
    `gatsby-plugin-image`,
  ],
};

Eleventy focuses on simplicity and flexibility, allowing developers to use various templating languages and have more control over the build process. Gatsby, on the other hand, provides a more opinionated structure with React and GraphQL at its core, offering powerful features out of the box but with added complexity.

Pros of Next.js

• Built-in server-side rendering and static site generation
• Seamless integration with React and its ecosystem
• Automatic code splitting for optimized performance

Cons of Next.js

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to React
• More complex setup and configuration compared to simpler static site generators
• Potentially higher resource usage for server-side rendering

Code Comparison

Next.js:

import { useEffect, useState } from 'react'

function HomePage() {
  const [data, setData] = useState(null)
  useEffect(() => {
    fetch('/api/data').then(res => res.json()).then(setData)
  }, [])
  return <div>{data ? data.message : 'Loading...'}</div>
}

Eleventy:

---
layout: layout.njk
---
<div>{{ data.message }}</div>

Next.js offers a more dynamic approach with React components and client-side data fetching, while Eleventy focuses on simplicity and static content generation. Next.js is better suited for complex, interactive applications, whereas Eleventy excels in creating lightweight, static websites with minimal JavaScript.

Pros of Nuxt

• Built-in Vue.js integration for dynamic, reactive web applications
• Server-side rendering capabilities for improved SEO and performance
• Extensive ecosystem with plugins and modules for added functionality

Cons of Nuxt

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to Vue.js
• Potentially larger bundle size due to included features and dependencies
• More complex setup and configuration compared to simpler static site generators

Code Comparison

Eleventy (Basic configuration):

module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
  // Add configuration here
  return {
    dir: {
      input: "src",
      output: "dist"
    }
  };
};

Nuxt (Basic configuration):

export default {
  // Target: https://go.nuxtjs.dev/config-target
  target: 'static',
  // Global page headers: https://go.nuxtjs.dev/config-head
  head: {
    title: 'My Nuxt App'
  }
}

Both Eleventy and Nuxt are popular static site generators, but they cater to different needs. Eleventy focuses on simplicity and flexibility, supporting multiple template languages and allowing developers to bring their own frontend tools. Nuxt, on the other hand, is tightly integrated with Vue.js and provides a more opinionated structure for building full-featured web applications with server-side rendering capabilities.

Pros of Hexo

• Built-in asset pipeline for handling CSS, JavaScript, and images
• Extensive plugin ecosystem with over 280 official plugins
• Supports multiple languages and internationalization out of the box

Cons of Hexo

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex configuration
• Slower build times for large sites compared to Eleventy
• Less flexibility in templating languages, primarily focused on EJS and Swig

Code Comparison

Hexo configuration (hexo.config.js):

module.exports = {
  title: 'My Site',
  theme: 'landscape',
  deploy: {
    type: 'git',
    repo: 'https://github.com/user/repo.git'
  }
};

Eleventy configuration (.eleventy.js):

module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
  eleventyConfig.addPassthroughCopy("img");
  return {
    dir: { input: "src", output: "dist" }
  };
};

Both Hexo and Eleventy are popular static site generators, but they differ in their approach and features. Hexo offers a more opinionated structure with built-in asset handling and a rich plugin ecosystem, making it suitable for bloggers who want a quick start. Eleventy, on the other hand, provides more flexibility in templating and configuration, allowing developers to have fine-grained control over their build process. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the developer's preferences.