decap-cms

Pros of Decap CMS

• More active development and recent updates
• Larger community and contributor base
• Better documentation and examples

Cons of Decap CMS

• Potentially more complex setup for simple use cases
• May have more features than necessary for some projects

Code Comparison

Decap CMS configuration example:

backend:
  name: git-gateway
  branch: main
media_folder: "static/images"
public_folder: "/images"
collections:
  - name: "blog"
    label: "Blog"
    folder: "content/blog"
    create: true
    fields:
      - {label: "Title", name: "title", widget: "string"}
      - {label: "Body", name: "body", widget: "markdown"}

Both repositories appear to be the same project, with Decap CMS being the main and actively maintained version. The comparison above is based on the assumption that one repository might be an older or alternative version. However, since they are likely the same project, the actual differences may be minimal or non-existent.

In this case, it's recommended to use the Decap CMS repository (decaporg/decap-cms) as it appears to be the primary and most up-to-date version of the project.

Pros of Strapi

• More comprehensive headless CMS solution with built-in API generation
• Offers a user-friendly admin panel for content management
• Supports multiple databases (SQLite, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB)

Cons of Strapi

• Requires server-side setup and hosting
• Steeper learning curve for developers
• More resource-intensive compared to static CMS solutions

Code Comparison

Strapi (API route definition):

module.exports = {
  routes: [
    {
      method: 'GET',
      path: '/articles',
      handler: 'article.find',
      config: { policies: [] }
    }
  ]
};

Decap CMS (config file):

collections:
  - name: "blog"
    label: "Blog"
    folder: "_posts/blog"
    create: true
    fields:
      - {label: "Title", name: "title", widget: "string"}
      - {label: "Body", name: "body", widget: "markdown"}

Key Differences

• Strapi is a full-featured headless CMS with a backend, while Decap CMS is a Git-based CMS for static site generators
• Strapi provides more flexibility in terms of content modeling and API customization
• Decap CMS is easier to set up and integrate with static sites, requiring no backend infrastructure
• Strapi offers more advanced features like user roles and permissions, while Decap CMS focuses on simplicity and Git-based workflows

Pros of Grav

• Standalone CMS with no database requirement, using flat-file architecture
• Highly extensible with a rich plugin ecosystem
• Lightweight and fast performance due to its file-based structure

Cons of Grav

• Steeper learning curve for non-technical users compared to Decap CMS
• Less suitable for large-scale websites with complex data relationships
• Limited built-in support for static site generation

Code Comparison

Grav (PHP):

$page = $this->grav['page'];
$config = $this->grav['config'];
$twig = $this->grav['twig'];
$twig->twig_vars['custom_variable'] = 'value';

Decap CMS (JavaScript):

import CMS from 'decap-cms-app';
CMS.init();
const config = {
  backend: { name: 'git-gateway', branch: 'main' },
  collections: [/* ... */]
};

Both Grav and Decap CMS offer content management solutions, but they cater to different use cases. Grav is a standalone CMS that excels in simplicity and speed, while Decap CMS focuses on providing a user-friendly interface for managing content in static site generators. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and the development team's expertise.

Pros of Jekyll

• Mature and widely adopted static site generator with a large community
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for added functionality
• Seamless integration with GitHub Pages for easy deployment

Cons of Jekyll

• Requires Ruby knowledge for advanced customization
• Slower build times for large sites compared to modern alternatives
• Less intuitive for non-technical users without a content management interface

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid template):

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

Decap CMS (React component):

const PostList = ({ posts }) => (
  <>
    {posts.map(post => (
      <div key={post.id}>
        <h2>{post.title}</h2>
        <p>{post.excerpt}</p>
      </div>
    ))}
  </>
)

Summary

Jekyll is a mature static site generator with a large ecosystem, while Decap CMS focuses on providing a user-friendly content management interface for static sites. Jekyll offers more flexibility for developers but may be less accessible for non-technical users. Decap CMS simplifies content management but may have limitations in advanced customization compared to Jekyll's extensive plugin system.

Pros of Gatsby

• More comprehensive framework with built-in performance optimizations
• Larger ecosystem with extensive plugins and themes
• Strong GraphQL integration for efficient data handling

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React or GraphQL
• Can be overkill for simpler projects or static sites
• Longer build times for large sites due to complex data processing

Code Comparison

Gatsby (React-based component):

import React from "react"
import { graphql } from "gatsby"

export default function BlogPost({ data }) {
  const post = data.markdownRemark
  return <div dangerouslySetInnerHTML={{ __html: post.html }} />
}

export const query = graphql`
  query($slug: String!) {
    markdownRemark(fields: { slug: { eq: $slug } }) {
      html
    }
  }
`

Decap CMS (Config file):

backend:
  name: git-gateway
  branch: main

media_folder: "static/images"
public_folder: "/images"

collections:
  - name: "blog"
    label: "Blog"
    folder: "content/blog"
    create: true
    fields:
      - { label: "Title", name: "title", widget: "string" }
      - { label: "Body", name: "body", widget: "markdown" }

Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times and better performance for large sites
• More extensive theming and templating capabilities
• Larger ecosystem with a wide range of themes and plugins

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Less intuitive content management for non-developers
• Requires local development environment setup

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go template):

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

Decap CMS (React component):

{entries.map(entry => (
  <div key={entry.id}>
    <h2>{entry.data.title}</h2>
    {entry.data.body}
  </div>
))}

Hugo focuses on static site generation using Go templates, while Decap CMS provides a React-based admin interface for content management. Hugo excels in performance and flexibility for developers, whereas Decap CMS offers a more user-friendly approach for content editors. Hugo requires more technical knowledge but provides greater control over the site structure and build process. Decap CMS integrates well with static site generators and offers a familiar CMS experience, making it easier for non-technical users to manage content.