Pros of Jekyll

• Larger community and ecosystem with extensive plugins and themes
• More flexible and customizable for advanced users
• Better documentation and wider adoption in the industry

Cons of Jekyll

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Requires Ruby knowledge for advanced customization
• More complex setup process compared to Gridea

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid template):

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

Gridea (Vue.js component):

<template>
  <div v-for="post in posts" :key="post.id">
    <h2>{{ post.title }}</h2>
    <p>{{ post.excerpt }}</p>
  </div>
</template>

Jekyll uses Liquid templating language, which is specific to static site generators, while Gridea utilizes Vue.js components, making it more familiar for developers with JavaScript experience. Jekyll's approach is more traditional for static sites, whereas Gridea's component-based structure aligns with modern web development practices.

Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times and better performance for large sites
• More extensive theme ecosystem and community support
• Advanced features like multilingual support and content management

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Requires command-line usage for many operations
• Less intuitive for beginners compared to Gridea's GUI-based approach

Code Comparison

Hugo (config.toml):

baseURL = "https://example.com"
languageCode = "en-us"
title = "My Hugo Site"
theme = "ananke"

Gridea (config.json):

{
  "siteName": "My Gridea Site",
  "siteDescription": "A site built with Gridea",
  "sourceFolder": "/posts",
  "theme": "default"
}

Both Hugo and Gridea are static site generators, but they cater to different user groups. Hugo is more powerful and flexible, suitable for larger projects and developers comfortable with command-line tools. Gridea, on the other hand, offers a user-friendly GUI interface, making it more accessible for beginners and those who prefer a visual approach to site management. Hugo's performance and extensive features make it a popular choice for complex websites, while Gridea's simplicity and ease of use make it ideal for personal blogs and smaller projects.

Pros of Eleventy

• More flexible and customizable, supporting multiple templating languages
• Faster build times for large sites due to its lightweight nature
• Active community and extensive plugin ecosystem

Cons of Eleventy

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• Requires more manual configuration compared to Gridea's GUI-based approach
• Less out-of-the-box features, often requiring additional setup or plugins

Code Comparison

Eleventy configuration (.eleventy.js):

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

Gridea doesn't have a direct code comparison as it's primarily GUI-based. However, it uses a configuration file (config.json) to store settings:

{
  "siteName": "My Gridea Site",
  "siteDescription": "A site built with Gridea",
  "sourceFolder": "/path/to/source",
  "outputFolder": "/path/to/output"
}

While Eleventy offers more flexibility and control through code, Gridea provides a simpler, more user-friendly approach for those who prefer a GUI-based static site generator.

Pros of Gatsby

• More robust and feature-rich, suitable for large-scale projects
• Extensive plugin ecosystem and community support
• Better performance optimization with built-in code splitting and prefetching

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React
• Longer build times for large sites
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Gridea

Code Comparison

Gatsby (React-based):

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

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

Gridea (Vue-based):

<template>
  <router-link to="/about">About</router-link>
</template>

<script>
export default {
  name: 'Home'
}
</script>

Gatsby uses React components and Gatsby-specific APIs, while Gridea utilizes Vue.js components and syntax. Gatsby's approach is more flexible but requires more setup, whereas Gridea offers a simpler, more streamlined development experience.

Gatsby is better suited for larger, more complex projects with specific performance requirements, while Gridea is ideal for smaller, straightforward static sites or blogs. The choice between the two depends on the project's scale, the developer's familiarity with React or Vue, and the desired level of customization and control.

Pros of Hexo

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger ecosystem of plugins and themes
• Supports multiple languages and internationalization out of the box
• Offers a powerful command-line interface for advanced users and automation

Cons of Hexo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Requires Node.js knowledge for customization and plugin development
• Configuration can be more complex, with multiple files and YAML syntax

Code Comparison

Hexo configuration (_config.yml):

title: My Blog
author: John Doe
language: en
theme: landscape

Gridea configuration (config.json):

{
  "siteName": "My Blog",
  "siteDescription": "A simple blog",
  "language": "en",
  "theme": "default"
}

Both Hexo and Gridea are static site generators, but they cater to different user groups. Hexo is more powerful and flexible, suitable for developers and advanced users who want fine-grained control over their site. Gridea, on the other hand, offers a user-friendly GUI and simpler configuration, making it more accessible for beginners or those who prefer a visual interface. The choice between the two depends on the user's technical expertise and specific requirements for their static site.

Pros of Zola

• Faster build times due to being written in Rust
• More flexible templating system with Tera
• Built-in syntax highlighting and search functionality

Cons of Zola

• Steeper learning curve, especially for users new to static site generators
• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Gridea

Code Comparison

Zola configuration (config.toml):

base_url = "https://example.com"
title = "My Zola Site"
compile_sass = true
highlight_code = true

Gridea configuration (config.json):

{
  "siteName": "My Gridea Site",
  "siteDescription": "A site built with Gridea",
  "sourceFolder": "/posts",
  "outputFolder": "/output"
}

Summary

Zola offers superior performance and more advanced features, making it suitable for larger projects and experienced users. Gridea, on the other hand, provides a more user-friendly interface and is better suited for beginners or those looking for a simpler static site generator. The choice between the two depends on the user's technical expertise and project requirements.