Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times, especially for large sites
• No dependencies, single binary installation
• Built-in asset pipeline for CSS, JS, and image processing

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-developers
• Less extensive plugin ecosystem compared to Jekyll
• Limited built-in support for dynamic content

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid templating):

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

Hugo (Go templating):

{{ range .Site.Pages }}
  <h2>{{ .Title }}</h2>
  <p>{{ .Summary }}</p>
{{ end }}

Both Jekyll and Hugo are popular static site generators, but they cater to different needs. Jekyll, built on Ruby, offers a more approachable experience for beginners and has a vast plugin ecosystem. It's deeply integrated with GitHub Pages, making it an excellent choice for simple blogs and documentation sites.

Hugo, written in Go, excels in performance and is ideal for larger sites or those requiring quick build times. Its single binary distribution simplifies installation and deployment. However, Hugo's power comes with a steeper learning curve, especially for those unfamiliar with Go templates.

Ultimately, the choice between Jekyll and Hugo depends on your specific requirements, technical expertise, and project scale.

Pros of Gatsby

• Faster build times and better performance for larger sites
• Rich ecosystem of plugins and integrations
• Built-in GraphQL for efficient data querying

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React
• Higher resource requirements for development and builds
• More complex setup for simple static sites

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid template):

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

Gatsby (React component):

import { graphql, useStaticQuery } from 'gatsby'

const PostList = () => {
  const data = useStaticQuery(graphql`
    query {
      allMarkdownRemark {
        edges {
          node {
            frontmatter {
              title
            }
            excerpt
          }
        }
      }
    }
  `)

  return (
    <>
      {data.allMarkdownRemark.edges.map(({ node }) => (
        <div key={node.id}>
          <h2>{node.frontmatter.title}</h2>
          <p>{node.excerpt}</p>
        </div>
      ))}
    </>
  )
}

Pros of Eleventy

• Faster build times, especially for larger sites
• More flexible with multiple templating languages supported
• Simpler configuration and setup process

Cons of Eleventy

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Jekyll
• Fewer built-in features, requiring more manual setup for some functionalities
• Less extensive documentation and tutorials available

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid templating):

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

Eleventy (Nunjucks templating):

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

Both Jekyll and Eleventy are popular static site generators, but they have different approaches. Jekyll, written in Ruby, has been around longer and has a larger community. Eleventy, built with JavaScript, offers more flexibility and faster build times. Jekyll provides more built-in features out of the box, while Eleventy allows for greater customization. The choice between the two often depends on the developer's familiarity with the underlying technologies and the specific requirements of the project.

Pros of Hexo

• Faster build times, especially for larger sites
• Built-in support for internationalization (i18n)
• More flexible plugin system

Cons of Hexo

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Jekyll
• Less native support from hosting platforms (e.g., GitHub Pages)
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Liquid templating):

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

Hexo (EJS templating):

<% site.posts.forEach(function(post){ %>
  <h2><%= post.title %></h2>
  <%- post.excerpt %>
<% }); %>

Both Jekyll and Hexo are popular static site generators, but they cater to slightly different audiences. Jekyll, written in Ruby, is known for its simplicity and extensive documentation. It's the default choice for GitHub Pages, making it easy for beginners to get started.

Hexo, on the other hand, is built with Node.js and offers faster build times, which can be beneficial for larger sites. It also provides built-in support for internationalization, making it a good choice for multilingual websites.

While Jekyll has a larger community and more themes available, Hexo's plugin system is more flexible, allowing for easier customization. However, Hexo's learning curve can be steeper for those new to static site generators or JavaScript.

Pros of Pelican

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for Python developers
• Supports Markdown, reStructuredText, and AsciiDoc out of the box
• Faster build times for large sites due to its static nature

Cons of Pelican

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Jekyll
• Less extensive theme and plugin options
• Steeper learning curve for non-Python developers

Code Comparison

Jekyll (Ruby):

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

{{ content }}

Pelican (Python):

Title: Hello World
Date: 2023-05-15 10:00
Category: Blog

{{ article.content }}

Both Jekyll and Pelican are popular static site generators, but they cater to different audiences. Jekyll, being Ruby-based, is deeply integrated with GitHub Pages and has a larger ecosystem. Pelican, on the other hand, offers Python developers a familiar environment and supports multiple markup languages out of the box. While Jekyll has a more extensive theme and plugin library, Pelican provides faster build times for larger sites. The choice between the two often comes down to the developer's preferred language 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 Jekyll
• Less theme availability and third-party integrations
• Steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with Rust

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 | safe }}</p>
{% endfor %}

Both Jekyll and Zola are static site generators, but they differ in their implementation and features. Jekyll, written in Ruby, has been around longer and has a larger ecosystem. Zola, written in Rust, offers faster performance and a simpler installation process.

Jekyll uses Liquid templating, while Zola uses Tera. Both have similar syntax for common operations like loops and conditionals. However, Zola's Rust-based architecture provides better performance, especially for larger sites.

Zola's single binary installation simplifies setup, whereas Jekyll requires Ruby and gem dependencies. Jekyll's larger community means more themes and plugins are available, but Zola includes features like syntax highlighting out of the box.