Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Gatsby vs Jekyll: What are the differences?
Introduction Gatsby and Jekyll are two popular static site generators used to build websites. While they both serve the same purpose of generating static websites, there are key differences between the two platforms. This Markdown code will provide a comparison between Gatsby and Jekyll, highlighting their distinctive features and functionalities.
Integration with React vs. Liquid Templating Language: One of the major differences between Gatsby and Jekyll lies in their templating languages. Gatsby uses React Templates, allowing developers to build dynamic and interactive user interfaces using JavaScript. On the other hand, Jekyll uses Liquid templating language, which provides a more limited set of functionality compared to React.
Plugins and Ecosystem: Another significant difference between Gatsby and Jekyll is the availability of plugins and the surrounding ecosystem. Gatsby boasts a vast plugin ecosystem with a wide range of community-developed plugins that extend its functionality and make it easier to implement various features. Jekyll, on the other hand, has a smaller selection of plugins available, limiting its flexibility and customization options.
Build Process and Performance: Gatsby and Jekyll also differ in their build process and resulting performance. Gatsby uses a build process that pre-fetches and pre-renders pages, resulting in fast loading times and improved performance. Jekyll, on the other hand, generates static HTML pages directly, which can sometimes result in slower loading times, especially for larger websites.
Data Fetching and Sources: In terms of data fetching, Gatsby and Jekyll have distinct approaches. Gatsby provides built-in functionality for fetching data from various sources, including APIs and databases, allowing developers to easily populate their websites with dynamic content. Jekyll, on the other hand, is more limited in terms of data sources and primarily relies on static data stored within the project itself.
Development Experience and Scalability: The development experience and scalability of Gatsby and Jekyll also differ. Gatsby's ecosystem and use of modern JavaScript technologies, such as webpack and GraphQL, provide a more powerful and scalable development experience. Jekyll, while straightforward to set up and use, may encounter limitations when it comes to larger and more complex projects.
Hosting and Deployment: Lastly, Gatsby and Jekyll differ in terms of hosting and deployment options. Gatsby allows for easy deployment to platforms such as Netlify or Vercel, with options for serverless and cloud-based hosting. Jekyll, on the other hand, is more commonly hosted on traditional web servers and requires manual deployment, limiting the flexibility and scalability of the hosting process.
In summary, Gatsby and Jekyll differ in templating languages, plugin ecosystems, build processes, data fetching capabilities, development experience, and hosting options. These distinctions should be considered when choosing between the two static site generators based on project requirements and preferences.
Hi everyone, I'm trying to decide which front-end tool, that will likely use server-side rendering (SSR), in hopes it'll be faster. The end-user will upload a document and they see text output on their screen (like SaaS or microservice). I read that Gatsby can also do SSR. Also want to add a headless CMS that is easy to use.
Backend is in Go. Open to ideas. Thank you.
If your purpose is plain simply to upload a file which can handle by backend service than Gatsby is good enough assuming you have other content pages which will benefit from faster page loads for those Headless CMS driven pages. But if you have more logical/functional aspects like deciding content/personalization at server side of web application than choose NextJS.
I have experience with Hugo and Next.js, but not with Gatsby. I would go with Next.js. However, I used Astro for my last project, so I would recommend Astro. Astro is much faster and you can use almost any frontend framework if you need to.
As a Frontend Developer I wanted something simple to generate static websites with technology I am familiar with. GatsbyJS was in the stack I am familiar with, does not need any other languages / package managers and allows quick content deployment in pure HTML
or Markdown
(what you prefer for a project). It also does not require you to understand a theming engine if you need a custom design.
Pros of Gatsby
- Generated websites are super fast28
- Fast16
- GraphQL15
- Progressive Web Apps generation10
- Easy to connect with lots of CMS via official plugins9
- Reusable components (React)9
- Allows to use markdown files as articles7
- Static-sites5
- All the benefits of a static website + React+GraphQL5
- Images5
- List of starters as base for new project4
- Easy to connect with Drupal via official plugin3
- Open source3
- Gitlab pages integration1
- Incremental Build1
Pros of Jekyll
- Github pages integration74
- Open source54
- It's slick, customisable and hackerish37
- Easy to deploy24
- Straightforward cms for the hacker mindset23
- Gitlab pages integration7
- Best for blogging5
- Low maintenance2
- Easy to integrate localization2
- Huge plugins ecosystem1
- Authoring freedom and simplicity1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Gatsby
- No ssr6
- Very slow builds3
- Documentation isn't complete.3
- For-profit2
- Slow builds2
- Flash of unstyled content issues2
- Problematic between develop and build commands1
- Difficult debugging1
- Too many dependencies1
- Plugin driven development1
- Difficult maintenance1
Cons of Jekyll
- Build time increases exponentially as site grows4
- Lack of developments lately2
- Og doesn't work with postings dynamically1