Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times and better performance for static sites
• No database required, simplifying deployment and maintenance
• Extensive theme ecosystem with numerous free and paid options

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Limited built-in features compared to Ghost's full CMS capabilities
• Lacks native commenting system and user management

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go template):

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

Ghost (Handlebars):

{{#foreach posts}}
  <h2>{{title}}</h2>
  {{content}}
{{/foreach}}

Hugo and Ghost are both popular content management systems, but they serve different purposes. Hugo is a static site generator focused on speed and simplicity, while Ghost is a full-featured dynamic CMS tailored for publishing.

Hugo excels in performance and ease of deployment, making it ideal for static websites and blogs. It doesn't require a database, which simplifies hosting and improves security. However, Hugo has a steeper learning curve and lacks some built-in features that Ghost offers out of the box.

Ghost, on the other hand, provides a more user-friendly interface and includes features like built-in SEO tools, a native editor, and user management. It's better suited for dynamic content and multi-author blogs but requires more server resources and maintenance.

Pros of Jekyll

• Simpler setup and deployment, especially for static sites
• Tighter integration with GitHub Pages for free hosting
• Lighter weight and faster performance for basic blogs

Cons of Jekyll

• Less user-friendly for non-technical users
• Limited built-in features compared to Ghost's rich ecosystem
• Requires more manual work for advanced functionality

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid template):

{% for post in site.posts %}
  <h2>{{ post.title }}</h2>
  {{ post.excerpt }}
{% endfor %}

Ghost (Handlebars template):

{{#foreach posts}}
  <h2>{{title}}</h2>
  {{excerpt}}
{{/foreach}}

Both Jekyll and Ghost are popular content management systems, but they cater to different needs. Jekyll is a static site generator that excels in simplicity and speed, making it ideal for developers and small projects. It's particularly well-suited for GitHub Pages integration.

Ghost, on the other hand, is a full-featured, dynamic CMS that offers a more comprehensive set of tools for professional publishers. It provides a user-friendly interface and robust features out of the box, but requires more server resources and technical knowledge for setup and maintenance.

The code comparison shows similarities in templating syntax, with Jekyll using Liquid and Ghost using Handlebars. Both allow for easy iteration over posts, but Ghost's dynamic nature enables more complex operations without rebuilding the entire site.

Pros of Eleventy

• Lightweight and flexible static site generator
• Supports multiple template languages (Nunjucks, Liquid, Handlebars, etc.)
• Easy to extend with plugins and custom JavaScript functions

Cons of Eleventy

• Lacks built-in CMS functionality
• Requires more technical knowledge for content management
• Limited out-of-the-box features compared to full-fledged CMS platforms

Code Comparison

Eleventy (JavaScript):

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

Ghost (JavaScript):

const ghost = require('ghost');
ghost().then(function (ghostServer) {
    ghostServer.start();
});

Key Differences

• Eleventy is a static site generator, while Ghost is a full-featured CMS
• Eleventy offers more flexibility in templating, Ghost provides a user-friendly admin interface
• Eleventy requires separate hosting and content management, Ghost includes these features
• Eleventy is better suited for developers, Ghost caters to both developers and content creators
• Eleventy generates static files, Ghost serves dynamic content by default

Pros of Gatsby

• Highly flexible and customizable static site generator
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for added functionality
• Excellent performance due to static site generation and optimizations

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React
• Longer build times for large sites compared to Ghost
• Requires more technical expertise for setup and maintenance

Code Comparison

Ghost (JavaScript):

{{#get "posts" limit="3"}}
  {{#foreach posts}}
    <h2>{{title}}</h2>
    <p>{{excerpt}}</p>
  {{/foreach}}
{{/get}}

Gatsby (React):

import { graphql } from 'gatsby'

export const query = graphql`
  query {
    allMarkdownRemark(limit: 3) {
      edges {
        node {
          frontmatter {
            title
          }
          excerpt
        }
      }
    }
  }
`

Ghost is a full-featured content management system focused on blogging, while Gatsby is a static site generator that can be used for various types of websites. Ghost offers a more user-friendly interface for content creators, whereas Gatsby provides greater flexibility and performance optimization capabilities. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the technical expertise of the development team.

Pros of Hexo

• Lightweight and faster to set up
• Supports a wide range of plugins and themes
• Static site generation for improved performance and security

Cons of Hexo

• Less user-friendly for non-technical users
• Limited built-in features compared to Ghost
• Requires more manual configuration and maintenance

Code Comparison

Hexo (JavaScript):

hexo.extend.generator.register('post', function(locals){
  return locals.posts.map(function(post){
    return {
      path: post.path,
      data: post.content
    };
  });
});

Ghost (JavaScript):

const ghostContentAPI = new GhostContentAPI({
  url: 'https://your-ghost-site.com',
  key: 'YOUR_CONTENT_API_KEY',
  version: 'v3'
});

ghostContentAPI.posts
  .browse({limit: 5, include: 'tags,authors'})
  .then((posts) => {
    console.log(posts);
  })
  .catch((err) => {
    console.error(err);
  });

Both Hexo and Ghost are popular content management systems, but they cater to different needs. Hexo is a static site generator that offers flexibility and performance, while Ghost is a more feature-rich, dynamic CMS with a user-friendly interface. The code examples showcase Hexo's generator function for creating posts and Ghost's Content API for retrieving posts, highlighting their different approaches to content management.

Pros of Pelican

• Lightweight and fast, with minimal server requirements
• Highly customizable through themes and plugins
• Supports multiple markup languages (Markdown, reStructuredText, AsciiDoc)

Cons of Pelican

• Steeper learning curve for non-technical users
• Lacks built-in features like user management and SEO tools
• Requires manual deployment and hosting setup

Code Comparison

Pelican (Python):

from pelican import Pelican
from pelican.settings import read_settings

settings = read_settings('pelicanconf.py')
pelican = Pelican(settings)
pelican.run()

Ghost (JavaScript):

const ghost = require('ghost');
ghost().then(function (ghostServer) {
    ghostServer.start();
});

Pelican is a static site generator written in Python, while Ghost is a dynamic content management system built with Node.js. Pelican generates static HTML files, which can be hosted on any web server, making it more lightweight and faster. Ghost, on the other hand, offers a more user-friendly interface and built-in features for blogging and content management.

Pelican is ideal for developers who prefer working with static sites and have experience with Python. Ghost is better suited for non-technical users and those who need a full-featured CMS with a modern admin interface.