Pros of Pelican

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Larger community and ecosystem with extensive documentation
• Supports a wide range of plugins and themes out-of-the-box

Cons of Pelican

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• More complex configuration and setup process
• Slower build times for large sites due to its comprehensive feature set

Code Comparison

Pelican configuration example:

AUTHOR = 'Your Name'
SITENAME = 'My Cool Site'
SITEURL = 'http://example.com'
PATH = 'content'
TIMEZONE = 'Europe/Paris'

Eggs configuration example:

site = {
    'title': 'My Cool Site',
    'url': 'http://example.com',
    'author': 'Your Name',
    'timezone': 'Europe/Paris'
}

While both projects aim to generate static sites, Pelican offers a more feature-rich and flexible solution with a larger ecosystem. Eggs, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more lightweight approach, which may be preferable for smaller projects or users seeking a minimalist setup. The code comparison shows that Eggs uses a more compact configuration structure, while Pelican's configuration is more verbose but potentially more customizable.

Pros of MkDocs

• Built-in search functionality
• Supports multiple themes out of the box
• Faster build times for large documentation projects

Cons of MkDocs

• Limited plugin ecosystem compared to Pelican
• Less flexibility in content organization
• Primarily focused on documentation, less suitable for general-purpose websites

Code Comparison

MkDocs configuration (mkdocs.yml):

site_name: My Docs
theme: material
nav:
  - Home: index.md
  - About: about.md

Eggs configuration (pelicanconf.py):

SITENAME = 'My Site'
THEME = 'pelican-bootstrap3'
MENUITEMS = (('Home', '/'),
             ('About', '/pages/about.html'),)

Summary

MkDocs is a Python-based static site generator focused on creating documentation websites. It offers built-in search, multiple themes, and fast build times. However, it has a more limited plugin ecosystem and is less flexible for general-purpose websites compared to Pelican with Eggs.

Eggs is a plugin for Pelican, a more versatile static site generator. While it may have slower build times for large projects, it provides greater flexibility in content organization and is better suited for various types of websites beyond documentation.

Pros of Hugo

• Faster build times for large sites
• Larger community and ecosystem with more themes and plugins
• Built-in asset pipeline for processing CSS, JavaScript, and images

Cons of Hugo

• Steeper learning curve, especially for non-developers
• Less flexible templating system compared to Eggs
• Requires Go installation for some advanced features

Code Comparison

Eggs (Pelican) template example:

{% extends "base.html" %}
{% block content %}
<h1>{{ article.title }}</h1>
{{ article.content }}
{% endblock %}

Hugo template example:

{{ define "main" }}
<h1>{{ .Title }}</h1>
{{ .Content }}
{{ end }}

Both Eggs and Hugo are static site generators, but they cater to different audiences. Eggs, being a Pelican plugin, is more Python-centric and easier for Python developers to extend. Hugo, on the other hand, offers better performance and a wider range of features out of the box, making it suitable for larger and more complex sites.

Hugo's Go-based architecture allows for faster build times, which is particularly beneficial for sites with thousands of pages. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve, especially for those not familiar with Go.

Eggs provides a more familiar environment for Python developers and offers greater flexibility in templating. However, it may struggle with performance on very large sites compared to Hugo.

Pros of Jekyll

• Larger community and ecosystem with more themes and plugins
• Built-in support for GitHub Pages, enabling easy deployment
• More mature and feature-rich, with extensive documentation

Cons of Jekyll

• Requires Ruby knowledge for advanced customization
• Slower build times for large sites compared to static site generators like Pelican
• Less flexible content organization compared to Pelican's hierarchical structure

Code Comparison

Jekyll (config.yml):

title: My Jekyll Site
description: A static site generator
url: "https://example.com"
theme: minima
plugins:
  - jekyll-feed

Eggs (pelicanconf.py):

SITENAME = 'My Pelican Site'
SITEURL = 'https://example.com'
THEME = 'pelican-bootstrap3'
PLUGIN_PATHS = ['plugins']
PLUGINS = ['sitemap']

Both Jekyll and Eggs (Pelican plugin) are static site generators, but they differ in their approach and ecosystem. Jekyll is more popular and has better integration with GitHub Pages, while Eggs offers more flexibility in content organization and is Python-based, which may be preferable for some developers.

Pros of Eleventy

• More flexible and customizable static site generator
• Supports multiple template languages (Nunjucks, Liquid, Handlebars, etc.)
• Active development and larger community support

Cons of Eleventy

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more configuration for complex projects

Code Comparison

Eleventy configuration (.eleventy.js):

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

Eggs configuration (pelicanconf.py):

AUTHOR = 'Your Name'
SITENAME = 'My Awesome Site'
SITEURL = ''
PATH = 'content'
THEME = 'theme_name'

Key Differences

• Eleventy uses JavaScript for configuration, while Eggs (Pelican) uses Python
• Eleventy offers more built-in features and plugins
• Eggs is simpler to set up for basic sites, but may be less flexible for complex projects

Use Cases

• Eleventy: Ideal for developers who need a highly customizable static site generator with support for multiple template languages
• Eggs: Better suited for Python developers or those who prefer a simpler, more opinionated static site generator

Pros of Gatsby

• More robust ecosystem with a large community and extensive plugin library
• Built-in performance optimizations like code splitting and lazy loading
• Supports GraphQL for efficient data querying and management

Cons of Gatsby

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

Code Comparison

Eggs (Pelican plugin):

def register():
    signals.initialized.connect(initialized)
    signals.article_generator_context.connect(add_eggs)

Gatsby:

exports.createPages = async ({ actions }) => {
  const { createPage } = actions
  // Create pages dynamically
}

Summary

Gatsby is a powerful React-based framework for building complex static sites and web applications, offering advanced features and optimizations. Eggs is a plugin for Pelican, a simpler Python-based static site generator. Gatsby excels in larger projects with dynamic content, while Eggs/Pelican may be more suitable for straightforward static sites or blogs. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired complexity.