Pros of VitePress

• Built on Vue.js, offering a powerful and flexible component system
• Leverages Vite for fast development and build times
• Includes built-in search functionality and customizable themes

Cons of VitePress

• Steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with Vue.js
• Less flexibility in content structure compared to Markdoc's schema-based approach
• Limited to Vue.js ecosystem, potentially restricting integration with other frameworks

Code Comparison

VitePress:

<script setup>
import { useData } from 'vitepress'
const { page } = useData()
</script>

<template>
  <h1>{{ page.title }}</h1>
</template>

Markdoc:

import { Markdoc } from '@markdoc/markdoc';

const content = `# {% $title %}`;
const ast = Markdoc.parse(content);
const rendered = Markdoc.transform(ast, { variables: { title: 'Hello' } });

VitePress uses Vue.js components for templating, while Markdoc employs a custom syntax for content generation. VitePress offers a more integrated approach within the Vue ecosystem, whereas Markdoc provides greater flexibility in terms of content structure and schema definition.

Pros of Astro

• Full-featured static site generator with built-in components and routing
• Supports multiple frontend frameworks (React, Vue, Svelte, etc.) in the same project
• Optimized performance with partial hydration and zero-JS by default

Cons of Astro

• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive feature set
• May be overkill for simple documentation projects
• Less focused on pure Markdown-based content compared to Markdoc

Code Comparison

Astro component:

---
const { title } = Astro.props;
---
<h1>{title}</h1>
<slot />

Markdoc component:

{% component 'Heading' %}
{{ title }}
{% /component %}
{{ children }}

Key Differences

• Astro is a full-fledged static site generator, while Markdoc focuses on Markdown-based content
• Astro supports multiple frontend frameworks, whereas Markdoc is framework-agnostic
• Astro has a more complex build process, while Markdoc offers simpler integration

Use Cases

• Astro: Ideal for complex websites with interactive components and multiple framework requirements
• Markdoc: Better suited for documentation-heavy projects and content-focused sites with minimal interactivity

Pros of Eleventy

• More flexible and customizable, supporting multiple template languages
• Larger community and ecosystem, with more plugins and resources available
• Better performance for larger sites due to its static site generation approach

Cons of Eleventy

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• Requires more configuration and setup compared to Markdoc's simplicity
• Less focused on documentation-specific features out of the box

Code Comparison

Markdoc:

# Welcome to Markdoc
This is a {% $variable %} example.
{% if condition %}
  Conditional content
{% /if %}

Eleventy:

---
layout: base.njk
---
<h1>Welcome to Eleventy</h1>
<p>This is a {{ variable }} example.</p>
{% if condition %}
  <p>Conditional content</p>
{% endif %}

Summary

Eleventy is a more versatile static site generator with broader applications, while Markdoc is specifically designed for documentation sites. Eleventy offers greater flexibility and customization options but requires more setup and knowledge. Markdoc provides a simpler, more focused approach to documentation, making it easier for beginners to get started but potentially limiting for complex projects.

Pros of Gatsby

• Extensive ecosystem with a wide range of plugins and themes
• Built-in performance optimizations, including image processing and lazy loading
• Strong community support and extensive documentation

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React or GraphQL
• Can be overkill for simple static sites or small projects
• Slower build times for large sites compared to simpler static site generators

Code Comparison

Markdoc example:

# {% $markdoc.frontmatter.title %}

{% if $markdoc.frontmatter.description %}
  {{ $markdoc.frontmatter.description }}
{% /if %}

{% block content %}{% /block %}

Gatsby example:

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

export default function Template({ data }) {
  const { markdownRemark } = data
  const { frontmatter, html } = markdownRemark
  return (
    <div>
      <h1>{frontmatter.title}</h1>
      <div dangerouslySetInnerHTML={{ __html: html }} />
    </div>
  )
}

export const pageQuery = graphql`
  query($path: String!) {
    markdownRemark(frontmatter: { path: { eq: $path } }) {
      html
      frontmatter {
        title
      }
    }
  }
`

Pros of Hugo

• Mature and feature-rich static site generator with a large ecosystem
• Extremely fast build times, especially for large sites
• Supports multiple content formats (Markdown, HTML, AsciiDoc, etc.)

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Template syntax can be complex for beginners
• Less flexibility for custom rendering compared to Markdoc

Code Comparison

Hugo (Go templates):

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

Markdoc (React components):

import { Markdown } from '@markdoc/markdoc';

function Page({ content }) {
  return <Markdown content={content} />;
}

Key Differences

• Hugo is a full-featured static site generator, while Markdoc is primarily a Markdown parser and renderer
• Hugo uses Go templates for templating, whereas Markdoc integrates with React components
• Hugo generates static HTML files, while Markdoc can be used in both static and dynamic environments

Use Cases

• Hugo: Ideal for large static websites, blogs, and documentation sites
• Markdoc: Well-suited for dynamic documentation, especially when integrated with React applications