Pros of Directus

• More comprehensive content management system with a full-featured admin panel
• Supports multiple database types (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, etc.)
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Directus

• Heavier and more complex setup compared to Meli's focused approach
• May be overkill for simple static site hosting needs
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to headless CMS systems

Code Comparison

Meli configuration (simplified):

version: '3'
services:
  meli:
    image: getmeli/meli:latest
    environment:
      - MELI_SITE_URL=https://example.com

Directus configuration (simplified):

{
  "database": {
    "client": "pg",
    "connection": {
      "host": "127.0.0.1",
      "port": 5432,
      "database": "directus",
      "user": "directus",
      "password": "directus"
    }
  }
}

Meli focuses on simple static site hosting, while Directus provides a more comprehensive content management solution. Meli's configuration is typically simpler, reflecting its focused approach. Directus requires more detailed setup but offers greater flexibility in database choices and content management features.

Pros of Strapi

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Offers a user-friendly admin panel for content management
• Supports multiple databases (SQLite, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB)

Cons of Strapi

• Can be resource-intensive for larger projects
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to headless CMS

Code Comparison

Strapi (JavaScript):

module.exports = ({ env }) => ({
  host: env('HOST', '0.0.0.0'),
  port: env.int('PORT', 1337),
  admin: {
    auth: {
      secret: env('ADMIN_JWT_SECRET'),
    },
  },
});

Meli (Go):

func main() {
    r := gin.Default()
    r.GET("/ping", func(c *gin.Context) {
        c.JSON(200, gin.H{
            "message": "pong",
        })
    })
    r.Run()
}

Key Differences

• Strapi is a headless CMS, while Meli is a platform for deploying static sites and frontend applications
• Strapi is built with Node.js, whereas Meli is written in Go
• Strapi focuses on content management and API creation, while Meli emphasizes deployment and hosting

Use Cases

• Choose Strapi for projects requiring a flexible content management system with a robust API
• Opt for Meli when you need a simple, performant solution for deploying and hosting static sites or frontend applications

Pros of Decap CMS

• More established project with a larger community and contributor base
• Extensive documentation and tutorials available
• Supports a wide range of static site generators and platforms

Cons of Decap CMS

• Limited to static site content management
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Meli
• Less flexible for custom workflows and integrations

Code Comparison

Decap CMS (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"}

Meli (meli.json):

{
  "sites": [
    {
      "name": "my-site",
      "url": "https://example.com",
      "branch": "main",
      "env": {
        "NODE_ENV": "production"
      }
    }
  ]
}

Decap CMS focuses on content management for static sites, while Meli is a more general-purpose deployment and hosting platform. Decap CMS offers a user-friendly interface for content editors, whereas Meli provides streamlined deployment workflows for developers. The code examples showcase the configuration differences, with Decap CMS centered around content structure and Meli focused on deployment settings.

Pros of Ghost

• More mature and widely adopted platform with a larger community
• Extensive plugin ecosystem and themes available
• Built-in SEO tools and native integrations with popular services

Cons of Ghost

• Heavier resource requirements, especially for larger sites
• Less flexibility in terms of customization compared to Meli
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the platform

Code Comparison

Ghost (JavaScript):

const ghost = require('ghost');

ghost().then((ghostServer) => {
    ghostServer.start();
});

Meli (Go):

package main

import "github.com/getmeli/meli/cmd"

func main() {
    cmd.Execute()
}

Key Differences

• Ghost is primarily focused on content publishing and blogging, while Meli is a more versatile static site and web app hosting platform
• Ghost uses Node.js and is written in JavaScript, whereas Meli is built with Go
• Meli offers features like automatic HTTPS, custom domains, and team collaboration out of the box
• Ghost provides a more comprehensive content management system with built-in editors and user management

Both platforms have their strengths, with Ghost excelling in content-focused websites and Meli offering more flexibility for various web projects. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Jekyll

• Mature and widely adopted static site generator with a large community
• Extensive plugin ecosystem and themes available
• Native support for GitHub Pages, making deployment simple

Cons of Jekyll

• Requires Ruby knowledge for advanced customization
• Slower build times for large sites compared to newer alternatives
• Limited built-in features for dynamic content

Code Comparison

Jekyll (config.yml):

title: My Jekyll Site
description: A static site generator
url: "https://example.com"
theme: minima
plugins:
  - jekyll-feed

Meli (meli.config.js):

module.exports = {
  site: {
    title: 'My Meli Site',
    description: 'A modern static site generator',
  },
  build: {
    outDir: 'public',
  },
};

While Jekyll uses a YAML configuration file, Meli opts for a JavaScript-based configuration, allowing for more flexibility and programmatic options. Jekyll's configuration focuses on site-wide settings and plugin management, whereas Meli's configuration provides more granular control over the build process and site structure.

Pros of Hugo

• Mature and widely adopted static site generator with a large community
• Extremely fast build times, especially for large sites
• Extensive theme ecosystem and built-in templating system

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-technical users
• Limited dynamic content capabilities without external services
• Requires local installation and command-line usage for content management

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go):

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

Meli (JavaScript):

sites.map(site => (
  <div key={site.id}>
    <h2>{site.name}</h2>
    <p>{site.description}</p>
  </div>
))

Key Differences

• Hugo is a static site generator, while Meli is a deployment and hosting platform
• Hugo focuses on content generation, Meli on site management and deployment
• Hugo requires local development, Meli offers a web-based interface
• Hugo is written in Go, Meli in JavaScript (React)
• Hugo has a larger community and ecosystem, Meli is newer with fewer resources

Both tools serve different purposes in the web development workflow. Hugo excels at generating static sites, while Meli simplifies deployment and hosting processes.