Pros of Hugo

• Larger ecosystem with more themes and plugins
• Faster build times for large sites
• More extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-Go developers
• More complex configuration and setup process
• Larger binary size and resource footprint

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go):

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

Zola (Tera):

{% for page in section.pages %}
  <h2>{{ page.title }}</h2>
  {{ page.content | safe }}
{% endfor %}

Both Hugo and Zola are static site generators, but they differ in their implementation and target audience. Hugo, written in Go, offers more features and flexibility, making it suitable for larger and more complex projects. Zola, written in Rust, focuses on simplicity and ease of use, making it ideal for smaller sites and beginners.

Hugo's extensive theme library and plugin ecosystem provide more options for customization, while Zola's simpler architecture makes it easier to understand and modify. Hugo excels in build speed for large sites, but Zola's performance is generally sufficient for most projects.

The choice between Hugo and Zola ultimately depends on the project requirements, developer preferences, and the desired balance between features and simplicity.

Pros of Jekyll

• Larger ecosystem with more themes, plugins, and community support
• Seamless integration with GitHub Pages for easy deployment
• Extensive documentation and tutorials available

Cons of Jekyll

• Slower build times, especially for larger sites
• Ruby dependency can be challenging for some users
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid templating):

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

Zola (Tera templating):

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

Key Differences

• Language: Jekyll is written in Ruby, while Zola is written in Rust
• Performance: Zola generally offers faster build times
• Templating: Jekyll uses Liquid, Zola uses Tera (similar to Jinja2)
• Asset handling: Zola has built-in asset processing, Jekyll requires plugins
• Learning curve: Zola may be easier for beginners due to simpler setup

Both static site generators are capable of producing high-quality websites, but they cater to different user preferences and project requirements. Jekyll's mature ecosystem and GitHub Pages integration make it popular for many users, while Zola's speed and simplicity appeal to those seeking a more streamlined experience.

Pros of Eleventy

• More flexible templating options (supports multiple languages)
• Larger ecosystem and community support
• Easier integration with existing JavaScript/Node.js projects

Cons of Eleventy

• Slower build times for large sites
• Steeper learning curve due to flexibility
• Requires Node.js runtime

Code Comparison

Eleventy (JavaScript):

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

Zola (TOML):

base_url = "https://example.com"
compile_sass = true
build_search_index = true

[markdown]
highlight_code = true

Key Differences

• Language: Eleventy is JavaScript-based, while Zola is written in Rust
• Performance: Zola generally offers faster build times
• Templating: Eleventy supports multiple languages, Zola uses Tera
• Ecosystem: Eleventy has a larger plugin ecosystem
• Learning Curve: Zola is simpler to learn and use for beginners
• Deployment: Zola produces a single binary, Eleventy requires Node.js

Both static site generators are powerful tools, but they cater to different needs and preferences. Eleventy offers more flexibility and a larger ecosystem, while Zola provides simplicity and performance.

Pros of Gatsby

• Larger ecosystem with extensive plugins and themes
• Built-in GraphQL support for efficient data querying
• Strong community support and extensive documentation

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React
• Slower build times for large sites compared to Zola
• Higher resource consumption due to JavaScript-heavy architecture

Code Comparison

Zola (content/blog/first-post.md):

+++
title = "My First Post"
date = 2023-04-15
+++

This is the content of my first blog post.

Gatsby (src/pages/first-post.js):

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

export default function FirstPost({ data }) {
  return <div>{data.markdownRemark.frontmatter.title}</div>
}

export const query = graphql`
  query {
    markdownRemark(frontmatter: { slug: { eq: "/first-post" } }) {
      frontmatter {
        title
      }
    }
  }
`

Zola is a simpler, faster static site generator written in Rust, while Gatsby is a more feature-rich, React-based framework. Zola uses a straightforward content structure with front matter, whereas Gatsby leverages GraphQL for data management and requires more setup for similar functionality.

Pros of Next.js

• Dynamic content: Supports server-side rendering and API routes
• Extensive ecosystem: Large community, many plugins, and integrations
• React-based: Leverages the popular React library for UI development

Cons of Next.js

• Complexity: Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Resource-intensive: Requires more server resources for SSR
• Build times: Can be slower for large projects compared to static site generators

Code Comparison

Next.js (React-based):

import { useState } from 'react';

function Counter() {
  const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
  return <button onClick={() => setCount(count + 1)}>{count}</button>;
}

Zola (Static site generator):

{% set count = 0 %}
<button onclick="this.textContent = ++count">{{ count }}</button>
<script>let count = {{ count }};</script>

Key Differences

• Next.js is a full-fledged React framework for building web applications, while Zola is a static site generator
• Next.js offers server-side rendering and dynamic content, whereas Zola focuses on generating static HTML files
• Next.js uses JavaScript/TypeScript, while Zola uses Rust for its core engine and supports various templating languages
• Next.js is more suitable for complex web applications, while Zola excels at creating simple, fast static websites

Pros of VuePress

• Built on Vue.js, offering a familiar ecosystem for Vue developers
• Extensive plugin system and theme customization options
• Optimized for technical documentation with features like built-in search

Cons of VuePress

• Slower build times, especially for larger sites
• Steeper learning curve for those not familiar with Vue.js
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Zola

Code Comparison

Zola (config.toml):

base_url = "https://example.com"
title = "My Site"
description = "A simple static site"

VuePress (config.js):

module.exports = {
  base: '/',
  title: 'My Site',
  description: 'A simple static site',
}

Key Differences

• Zola is written in Rust, focusing on speed and simplicity
• VuePress leverages Vue.js for dynamic content and interactivity
• Zola uses a single TOML file for configuration, while VuePress uses JavaScript
• Zola has a built-in asset pipeline, whereas VuePress relies on webpack
• VuePress offers more advanced features for documentation sites, while Zola is more general-purpose

Both static site generators have their strengths, with Zola excelling in simplicity and speed, and VuePress offering more flexibility and integration with the Vue ecosystem.