Pros of Next.js

• More comprehensive and feature-rich framework for building React applications
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and third-party integrations
• Supports both static site generation (SSG) and server-side rendering (SSR) out of the box

Cons of Next.js

• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its extensive feature set
• Can be overkill for simple projects or documentation sites
• Requires more configuration and setup compared to Nextra

Code Comparison

Next.js:

import { useRouter } from 'next/router'

function ActiveLink({ children, href }) {
  const router = useRouter()
  const style = { color: router.asPath === href ? 'red' : 'black' }
  return <a href={href} style={style}>{children}</a>
}

Nextra:

import { useRouter } from 'next/router'
import Link from 'next/link'

function ActiveLink({ children, href }) {
  const router = useRouter()
  const isActive = router.asPath === href
  return (
    <Link href={href} className={isActive ? 'active' : ''}>{children}</Link>
  )
}

Pros of Docusaurus

• More mature and feature-rich, with a larger ecosystem and community support
• Offers a wider range of themes and plugins out of the box
• Better internationalization support for multilingual documentation

Cons of Docusaurus

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Heavier bundle size, which may impact initial load times
• Less flexible in terms of customization compared to Nextra's simplicity

Code Comparison

Nextra configuration (next.config.js):

const withNextra = require('nextra')({
  theme: 'nextra-theme-docs',
  themeConfig: './theme.config.js',
})
module.exports = withNextra()

Docusaurus configuration (docusaurus.config.js):

module.exports = {
  title: 'My Site',
  tagline: 'Documentation made easy',
  url: 'https://your-docusaurus-site.com',
  baseUrl: '/',
  onBrokenLinks: 'throw',
  onBrokenMarkdownLinks: 'warn',
  favicon: 'img/favicon.ico',
  // ... more configuration options
}

Both Nextra and Docusaurus are powerful static site generators for creating documentation websites. Nextra offers simplicity and ease of use, while Docusaurus provides a more comprehensive set of features and customization options. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and your familiarity with React and Next.js.

Pros of Gatsby

• Larger ecosystem with extensive plugins and themes
• More mature project with longer development history
• Supports a wider range of data sources and integrations

Cons of Gatsby

• Steeper learning curve, especially for React beginners
• Slower build times for large sites
• More complex configuration and setup process

Code Comparison

Nextra (Next.js-based) routing:

// pages/index.js
export default function Home() {
  return <h1>Welcome to Nextra</h1>
}

Gatsby routing:

// src/pages/index.js
import React from "react"

export default function Home() {
  return <h1>Welcome to Gatsby</h1>
}

Summary

Gatsby is a more established and feature-rich static site generator with a vast ecosystem. It offers greater flexibility for complex projects but comes with a steeper learning curve. Nextra, built on Next.js, provides a simpler and more streamlined approach, making it easier for beginners to get started. Gatsby excels in handling diverse data sources and integrations, while Nextra focuses on simplicity and ease of use for documentation and content-heavy sites. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired complexity level.

Pros of VuePress

• Built on Vue.js, offering a familiar ecosystem for Vue developers
• Extensive plugin system and theme customization options
• Strong documentation and community support

Cons of VuePress

• Slower build times for large sites compared to Nextra
• Less focus on modern React features and Next.js integration

Code Comparison

VuePress configuration:

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

Nextra configuration:

export default {
  logo: <span>My Site</span>,
  project: { link: 'https://github.com/username/repo' },
  docsRepositoryBase: 'https://github.com/username/repo/tree/main'
}

Key Differences

• VuePress is Vue-based, while Nextra is built on Next.js and React
• Nextra offers better performance for larger sites
• VuePress has a more mature ecosystem and plugin support
• Nextra provides seamless integration with Next.js features

Use Cases

• Choose VuePress for Vue-based projects or when extensive customization is needed
• Opt for Nextra for React projects, faster builds, and modern Next.js features

Pros of Docsify

• Simpler setup and configuration, requiring minimal initial setup
• No build process needed, works directly with Markdown files
• Supports a wider range of plugins and themes out-of-the-box

Cons of Docsify

• Limited built-in features compared to Nextra's more comprehensive offering
• Less integration with React ecosystem and Next.js framework
• May require more custom JavaScript for advanced functionality

Code Comparison

Docsify configuration:

window.$docsify = {
  name: 'My Documentation',
  repo: 'https://github.com/user/repo',
  loadSidebar: true,
  subMaxLevel: 2
};

Nextra configuration:

export default {
  logo: <span>My Project</span>,
  project: { link: 'https://github.com/user/repo' },
  docsRepositoryBase: 'https://github.com/user/repo/tree/main',
  useNextSeoProps() {
    return { titleTemplate: '%s – My Project' }
  }
};

Both Docsify and Nextra offer streamlined documentation solutions, but they cater to different needs. Docsify excels in simplicity and quick setup, making it ideal for smaller projects or those preferring a lightweight solution. Nextra, built on Next.js, provides a more robust framework with enhanced React integration, making it suitable for larger, more complex documentation needs, especially within the React ecosystem.

Pros of Astro

• Supports multiple frontend frameworks (React, Vue, Svelte, etc.) in a single project
• Offers partial hydration for improved performance
• Has a larger community and ecosystem

Cons of Astro

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to static site generators
• Less focused on documentation-specific features compared to Nextra

Code Comparison

Astro:

---
const title = "My Astro Site";
---
<html>
  <head><title>{title}</title></head>
  <body><h1>{title}</h1></body>
</html>

Nextra:

import { useConfig } from 'nextra-theme-docs'

export default function Layout({ children }) {
  const { title } = useConfig()
  return <div><h1>{title}</h1>{children}</div>
}

Key Differences

• Astro uses a custom .astro file format, while Nextra leverages standard React components
• Astro's component syntax separates frontmatter and markup, whereas Nextra uses JSX
• Nextra is more focused on documentation sites, while Astro is a general-purpose static site generator

Use Cases

• Choose Astro for multi-framework projects or when partial hydration is crucial
• Opt for Nextra when building documentation sites with Next.js and MDX