Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times, especially for large sites
• Single binary with no dependencies, making installation and deployment simpler
• More built-in features and themes out of the box

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for those new to Go templating
• Less extensible compared to Hexo's plugin system
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Node.js-based alternatives

Code Comparison

Hexo (JavaScript):

hexo.extend.helper.register('example', function(text){
  return text.toUpperCase();
});

Hugo (Go):

{{ define "example" }}
  {{ .Title | upper }}
{{ end }}

Both Hexo and Hugo are popular static site generators, but they cater to different preferences and use cases. Hexo, built on Node.js, offers a familiar environment for JavaScript developers and a robust plugin system. Hugo, written in Go, focuses on speed and simplicity, making it an excellent choice for larger sites or those seeking faster build times.

The code comparison showcases the different approaches to extending functionality. Hexo uses JavaScript functions for helpers, while Hugo relies on Go templating for similar tasks. This difference reflects the overall philosophy of each project, with Hexo offering more flexibility through its plugin system and Hugo emphasizing performance and built-in features.

Pros of Jekyll

• Mature ecosystem with extensive plugin support and themes
• Native GitHub Pages integration for easy deployment
• Ruby-based, which may be preferred by some developers

Cons of Jekyll

• Slower build times for large sites compared to Hexo
• Less flexibility in content organization and structure
• Steeper learning curve for non-Ruby developers

Code Comparison

Jekyll:

---
layout: post
title: "Hello World"
---

{{ content }}

Hexo:

---
layout: post
title: Hello World
---

<%- page.content %>

Both Jekyll and Hexo are popular static site generators, but they have different approaches. Jekyll uses Liquid templating and is built with Ruby, while Hexo uses EJS, Pug, or other templating engines and is built with Node.js. Jekyll's syntax is more Ruby-like, whereas Hexo's is more JavaScript-oriented.

Jekyll has been around longer and has a larger community, which means more resources and plugins. However, Hexo offers faster build times and more flexibility in content structure. Jekyll integrates seamlessly with GitHub Pages, making it a popular choice for project documentation and personal blogs. Hexo, on the other hand, provides better support for multilingual sites and has a more modular architecture.

Ultimately, the choice between Jekyll and Hexo depends on your specific needs, preferred programming language, and desired features for your static site.

Pros of Eleventy

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

Cons of Eleventy

• Smaller ecosystem and fewer plugins compared to Hexo
• Less built-in functionality, requiring more custom code for advanced features
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its flexibility

Code Comparison

Hexo configuration (_config.yml):

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

Eleventy configuration (.eleventy.js):

module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
  // Add custom filters, shortcodes, etc.
  return {
    dir: {
      input: "src",
      output: "dist"
    }
  };
};

Both Hexo and Eleventy are popular static site generators, but they cater to different needs. Hexo is more opinionated and blog-focused, offering a larger ecosystem of themes and plugins. It's easier for beginners to get started with Hexo due to its conventions and built-in features.

Eleventy, on the other hand, provides more flexibility and faster build times, making it suitable for a wider range of projects. It supports multiple templating languages and allows for more customization, but this can also lead to a steeper learning curve.

Ultimately, the choice between Hexo and Eleventy depends on the specific requirements of your project and your preferred level of control over the site's structure and functionality.

Pros of Gatsby

• More powerful and flexible, with a rich ecosystem of plugins and themes
• Better performance optimization, including automatic code splitting and image optimization
• Strong support for GraphQL, enabling 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 requirements, both in terms of development and hosting

Code Comparison

Hexo (JavaScript):

hexo.extend.generator.register('post', function(locals){
  return locals.posts.map(function(post){
    return {
      path: post.path,
      data: post.content
    };
  });
});

Gatsby (JavaScript/React):

exports.createPages = async ({ actions }) => {
  const { createPage } = actions
  const result = await fetchPosts()
  result.forEach((post) => {
    createPage({
      path: post.slug,
      component: path.resolve(`./src/templates/post.js`),
      context: { id: post.id },
    })
  })
}

Both Hexo and Gatsby are popular static site generators, but they cater to different needs and skill levels. Hexo is simpler and faster to set up, making it ideal for bloggers and smaller projects. Gatsby, while more complex, offers greater flexibility and performance optimizations, making it suitable for larger, more dynamic websites and web applications.

Pros of VuePress

• Built on Vue.js, offering a more modern and flexible frontend framework
• Better out-of-the-box performance and SEO optimization
• Seamless integration with Vue components for enhanced functionality

Cons of VuePress

• Smaller ecosystem and plugin availability compared to Hexo
• Steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with Vue.js
• Less flexibility in terms of themes and customization options

Code Comparison

VuePress configuration (.vuepress/config.js):

module.exports = {
  title: 'My Site',
  description: 'A VuePress site',
  themeConfig: {
    nav: [{ text: 'Home', link: '/' }]
  }
}

Hexo configuration (_config.yml):

title: My Site
description: A Hexo site
theme: landscape
url: http://example.com

Both Hexo and VuePress are static site generators, but they cater to different needs. Hexo is more blog-oriented and has a larger ecosystem, while VuePress is better suited for documentation sites and offers tighter integration with Vue.js. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with their respective ecosystems.

Pros of Pelican

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for Python developers
• Supports reStructuredText alongside Markdown for content creation
• Has a strong focus on simplicity and ease of use

Cons of Pelican

• Slower build times compared to Hexo, especially for larger sites
• Less extensive plugin ecosystem and theme options
• Limited built-in internationalization support

Code Comparison

Pelican configuration (pelicanconf.py):

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

Hexo configuration (_config.yml):

title: My Blog
author: Your Name
url: http://example.com
root: /
timezone: Europe/Paris

Both Hexo and Pelican are popular static site generators, but they cater to different audiences. Hexo, built with Node.js, offers faster build times and a larger ecosystem of plugins and themes. It's particularly popular among developers who are comfortable with JavaScript.

Pelican, on the other hand, appeals to Python enthusiasts and those who prefer a simpler, more straightforward approach to site generation. Its support for reStructuredText alongside Markdown provides additional flexibility in content creation.

While Hexo generally outperforms Pelican in terms of build speed and extensibility, Pelican's Python-based architecture and focus on simplicity make it an attractive option for many users, especially those already familiar with Python ecosystems.