Choice of Static Site generator for Floe and Fluid Project websites

[SACHIN CHOPRA]

Hello everyone,
I was looking at different options available for the choice of SSG for floe
and fluid project websites. Here's a table showing the pros and cons of
various options available.
All the other repositories under fluid-project are using Hugo as the SSG
and using it would maintain consistency across different repositories.
Moreover, the features provided by Hugo would help us in
easily implementing different features on the websites.
It would be great if you could look at the table once and comment on which
should be the best choice for the same.
Regards
Sachin




Github Stars

42.7k 🌟

42.2k 🌟

39.9k🌟

4.6k🌟

Language

JavaScript

Go

Ruby

Javascript

Templates

React

Go

Liquid

Multiple support

Integration

React, Webpack, GraphQL

Markdown, GitLab Pages, Buddy

Gitlab Pages, Comment It, Github Pages

GH-pages, Markdown

Pros

Progressive Web Application is developed.

Faster to develop.

Built-in Development Server.

Supports multiple template languages.

Supports GraphQL

Don’t need time to figure out configurations.

SEO-conscious in nature.

Zero boilerplate client-side JavaScript.

Supports a huge ecosystem of Plugins.

Cross-Platform Availability

Good plugin and theme support base.

Zero Config: Works with the project’s default file structure.

Well written tutorial and documentation

Supports TOML, YAML, and JSON for the front matter and strong theme base

Liquid templating is convenient and easy to understand.

Written in JS, we can write our own plugins and data processing tools as
per need.

Vast and active community. Help easily available.

Enterprise-ready. With support for multilingual sites

Readily integrable with Github pages.

zero-config by default but flexible conf. Options






Cons

Needs a strong understanding of ReactJS.

No Plugin support

No Image editor

Small community. Help isn’t easily available.

Beginners find it tough to develop.

Uses Go’s Template instead of Liquid which is non-user friendly.

Build time increases with the addition of plugins

Small Plugin support base. Only three official plugins are present.

Build time increases dramatically with files and styles

No asset pipeline.

Slower to build compared to Hugo.

Build times are slow compared to Hugo and Jekyll.

Everything has to be stored in memory and hence RAM tends to run out while
building it.

No XML Support for data feeds.

Restricted file structure. Iterating through data files is limited in
nature.

The template base isn’t strong, unlike Jekyll and Hugo.

Recommendation

Not suitable as per our needs.

Candidate for further evaluation.

Candidate for further evaluation.

Too small/poorly adopted to consider.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20200506/dc376f0f/attachment.htm>