Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times, especially for large sites
• Built-in asset pipeline for processing CSS, JavaScript, and images
• More extensive theming system with easier customization

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for those new to Go templates
• Less flexible content organization compared to Pelican's freedom
• Smaller ecosystem of plugins and extensions

Code Comparison

Pelican (Python):

AUTHOR = 'Your Name'
SITENAME = 'My Cool Site'
SITEURL = 'http://example.com'

PATH = 'content'
TIMEZONE = 'Europe/Paris'

Hugo (TOML):

baseURL = "http://example.org/"
languageCode = "en-us"
title = "My Cool Site"
theme = "ananke"

[params]
  author = "Your Name"
  description = "Welcome to my website"

Both Pelican and Hugo are popular static site generators, but they cater to different needs. Pelican, written in Python, offers simplicity and flexibility, making it ideal for smaller projects and those familiar with Python. Hugo, on the other hand, excels in performance and built-in features, making it suitable for larger sites and those who prioritize speed. The choice between them often depends on the project requirements and the developer's familiarity with the respective ecosystems.

Pros of Jekyll

• Larger community and ecosystem, with more themes and plugins available
• Native support for GitHub Pages, enabling easy deployment
• Built-in support for Sass and CoffeeScript

Cons of Jekyll

• Ruby dependency can be challenging for non-Ruby developers
• Slower build times for large sites compared to Pelican
• Less flexibility in content organization and URL structure

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid template):

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

Pelican (Jinja2 template):

{% for article in articles %}
  <h2>{{ article.title }}</h2>
  <p>{{ article.summary }}</p>
{% endfor %}

Both Jekyll and Pelican are popular static site generators, but they cater to different audiences. Jekyll is more suitable for users familiar with Ruby and those who want to leverage GitHub Pages integration. Pelican, on the other hand, is ideal for Python developers and offers more flexibility in content management. The choice between the two depends on your programming language preference, deployment requirements, and desired level of customization.

Pros of Eleventy

• More flexible templating options (supports multiple languages)
• Faster build times for large sites
• Simpler configuration and setup process

Cons of Eleventy

• Less mature ecosystem and plugin availability
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Limited built-in features compared to Pelican

Code Comparison

Pelican (Python):

AUTHOR = 'Your Name'
SITENAME = 'My Cool Site'
SITEURL = 'http://example.com'

PATH = 'content'
TIMEZONE = 'Europe/Paris'

DEFAULT_LANG = 'en'

Eleventy (JavaScript):

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

Both Pelican and Eleventy are static site generators, but they cater to different audiences and use cases. Pelican is Python-based and offers a more traditional blogging experience, while Eleventy is JavaScript-based and provides greater flexibility in terms of templating and site structure. Eleventy's configuration is typically simpler, but it may require more setup for advanced features. Pelican, on the other hand, comes with more built-in functionality out of the box.

Pros of Gatsby

• More extensive ecosystem with a large plugin library
• Better performance optimization with built-in code splitting and prefetching
• Supports dynamic content and can integrate with various data sources

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React
• Longer build times for large sites
• Higher resource consumption due to its JavaScript-heavy nature

Code Comparison

Pelican (Python):

AUTHOR = 'Your Name'
SITENAME = 'My Cool Site'
SITEURL = ''
PATH = 'content'
TIMEZONE = 'Europe/Paris'

Gatsby (JavaScript):

module.exports = {
  siteMetadata: {
    title: `My Cool Site`,
    author: `Your Name`,
    description: `A starter blog demonstrating Gatsby`,
  },
  plugins: [
    `gatsby-plugin-react-helmet`,
    `gatsby-transformer-sharp`,
  ],
}

Summary

Pelican is a simpler, Python-based static site generator that's easy to set up and use. It's ideal for smaller projects and developers familiar with Python. Gatsby, on the other hand, is a more powerful and flexible React-based framework that excels in creating complex, high-performance websites. It offers more features and integrations but requires more JavaScript knowledge and resources.

Pros of Hexo

• Faster build times for large sites
• More extensive plugin ecosystem
• Better support for internationalization (i18n)

Cons of Hexo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-JavaScript developers
• Less flexibility in content organization compared to Pelican
• Smaller community and fewer themes available

Code Comparison

Pelican (Python):

from pelican import Pelican
from pelican.settings import read_settings

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

Hexo (JavaScript):

const Hexo = require('hexo');
const hexo = new Hexo(process.cwd(), {});

hexo.init().then(() => {
  return hexo.call('generate');
}).catch(console.error);

Both Pelican and Hexo are popular static site generators, but they cater to different audiences. Pelican is Python-based and offers simplicity and ease of use, making it ideal for developers familiar with Python. It provides a straightforward approach to content creation and site structure.

Hexo, on the other hand, is built with Node.js and offers faster build times, especially for larger sites. It has a more extensive plugin ecosystem, allowing for greater customization. However, Hexo has a steeper learning curve, particularly for those not familiar with JavaScript.

While Pelican excels in flexibility and simplicity, Hexo shines in performance and extensibility. The choice between the two often comes down to personal preference and specific project requirements.

Pros of Zola

• Faster build times due to being written in Rust
• Single binary installation with no dependencies
• Built-in syntax highlighting and search functionality

Cons of Zola

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Pelican
• Less flexibility in terms of customization and plugins
• Steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with Rust

Code Comparison

Zola configuration (config.toml):

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

Pelican configuration (pelicanconf.py):

SITEURL = 'https://example.com'
SITENAME = 'My Blog'
THEME = 'mytheme'
PLUGIN_PATHS = ['plugins']
PLUGINS = ['sitemap']

Both Zola and Pelican are static site generators, but they differ in their approach and implementation. Zola offers speed and simplicity, while Pelican provides more extensive customization options and a larger ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.