Pros of Jekyll

• Larger community and ecosystem with more themes and plugins
• Seamless integration with GitHub Pages for easy deployment
• Ruby-based, which may be preferred by some developers

Cons of Jekyll

• Slower build times for large sites
• Less flexible content management compared to Grav's hierarchical structure
• Steeper learning curve for non-technical users

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid template):

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

Grav (Twig template):

{% for page in pages.children %}
  <h2>{{ page.title }}</h2>
  <p>{{ page.summary }}</p>
{% endfor %}

Both Jekyll and Grav are popular static site generators, but they have different approaches to content management and templating. Jekyll uses Liquid templating and a flat file structure, while Grav employs Twig templating and a hierarchical content structure. Jekyll's tight integration with GitHub Pages makes it an excellent choice for developers familiar with Ruby and looking for easy deployment. On the other hand, Grav offers a more flexible content management system and may be more suitable for complex site structures and non-technical users.

Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times, especially for large sites
• Simpler installation process (single binary)
• Larger ecosystem with more themes and plugins

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Less flexibility in content organization compared to Grav's modular approach
• Limited built-in functionality, often requiring additional plugins

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go template):

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

Grav (Twig template):

{% for page in pages.children %}
  <h2>{{ page.title }}</h2>
  {{ page.content }}
{% endfor %}

Both Hugo and Grav are popular static site generators, but they have different approaches. Hugo focuses on speed and simplicity, making it ideal for large sites and developers comfortable with Go templates. Grav, built on PHP, offers a more user-friendly interface and greater flexibility in content structure, making it suitable for content-heavy sites and users who prefer a more traditional CMS experience.

Hugo's single binary installation and faster build times are significant advantages for larger projects and teams with technical expertise. However, Grav's modular architecture and intuitive admin panel make it more accessible for non-technical users and provide more built-in functionality out of the box.

Pros of Eleventy

• Simpler setup and faster build times
• More flexible with multiple templating languages support
• Easier integration with existing JavaScript ecosystems

Cons of Eleventy

• Less built-in functionality, requiring more custom development
• Steeper learning curve for non-developers
• Lacks a built-in admin interface

Code Comparison

Eleventy (JavaScript):

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

Grav (PHP):

<?php
namespace Grav\Theme;

use Grav\Common\Theme;

class CustomTheme extends Theme
{
    // Theme setup
}

Summary

Eleventy is a lightweight static site generator that offers flexibility and speed, making it ideal for developers comfortable with JavaScript. It excels in build performance and integration with modern web development tools.

Grav, on the other hand, is a flat-file CMS that provides a more comprehensive out-of-the-box solution. It includes a user-friendly admin interface and content management features, making it suitable for non-technical users and projects requiring dynamic content.

The choice between Eleventy and Grav depends on the project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of control over the development process.

Pros of Gatsby

• Built on React, offering a modern JavaScript ecosystem and component-based architecture
• Extensive plugin system for easy integration of various features and data sources
• GraphQL for efficient data querying and management

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React and GraphQL
• Longer build times for large sites, which can slow down development workflow
• Higher resource consumption compared to static site generators

Code Comparison

Gatsby (React-based):

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

export default function Home() {
  return <Link to="/about/">About</Link>
}

Grav (Twig-based):

<a href="{{ base_url }}/about">About</a>

Key Differences

• Gatsby is a static site generator using React, while Grav is a flat-file CMS using PHP
• Gatsby requires a build process to generate static files, whereas Grav renders pages on-the-fly
• Gatsby uses GraphQL for data management, while Grav relies on YAML-based content files
• Grav offers a more traditional CMS experience, suitable for non-technical users
• Gatsby provides better performance for large-scale sites due to its static nature

Pros of Hexo

• Faster build times for large sites due to its static site generation approach
• More extensive plugin ecosystem with a wider range of community-contributed themes and plugins
• Easier integration with version control systems and continuous deployment pipelines

Cons of Hexo

• Steeper learning curve for non-developers due to its command-line interface and Node.js environment
• Less flexibility in content management compared to Grav's flat-file CMS approach
• Limited built-in multilingual support, requiring additional plugins for comprehensive language handling

Code Comparison

Grav (PHP):

---
title: My Page
---
# Welcome to My Page
{{ page.content }}

Hexo (JavaScript):

---
title: My Page
---
# Welcome to My Page
<%- page.content %>

Both systems use front matter for page metadata, but Grav uses Twig templating while Hexo uses EJS for content rendering. Hexo's static site generation approach results in simpler deployment, while Grav offers more dynamic content capabilities out of the box.

Pros of Decap CMS

• Integrates seamlessly with static site generators and Git-based workflows
• Provides a user-friendly interface for content management without requiring technical knowledge
• Supports a wide range of content types and custom fields

Cons of Decap CMS

• Requires additional setup and configuration compared to Grav's all-in-one solution
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with JAMstack architectures
• Limited built-in themes and plugins compared to Grav's ecosystem

Code Comparison

Decap CMS configuration (config.yml):

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

Grav page configuration (blog.md):

---
title: My Blog Post
taxonomy:
    category: blog
    tag: [technology, web]
---

# Blog post content here

Both systems offer unique approaches to content management. Decap CMS focuses on providing a user-friendly interface for static sites, while Grav offers a more traditional flat-file CMS experience with built-in routing and templating.