Our project requires the generation of a static website. The website will contain documentation, articles, guides and other static content. The primary contenders for the static site generator (SSG) are Hugo, MkDocs, and Docusaurus.
3. Decision Drivers
Ease of Use
The simplicity of setup and use.
Performance
Speed of site generation and performance of the generated site.
Customization and Extensibility
Ability to customize themes and extend functionality.
Community and Support
Availability of community support, plugins, and documentation.
Integration
Compatibility with existing tools and workflows.
Markdown Flavor
Support for different Markdown flavors and extended Markdown features.
Markup Languages
Support for other markup languages besides Markdown.
3. Decision
Hugo
Hugo was selected due to its superior performance, flexibility, extensive customization options, robust Markdown support through Goldmark, and support for multiple markup languages including AsciiDoc and reStructuredText. Although it has a steeper learning curve and more complex configuration compared to MkDocs, its speed and ability to handle large sites efficiently make it the best choice for our project. Additionally, Hugo's strong community support and comprehensive documentation ensure that any challenges can be addressed effectively.
4. Considered
Hugo
Pros
Performance
Hugo is one of the fastest SSGs available, capable of building large sites quickly.
Flexibility
Supports a wide range of content types and taxonomies.
Customization
Extensive theming capabilities and support for custom templates.
Documentation
Comprehensive documentation and a large community.
Supports Goldmark, which is an extension-rich implementation of the compatible CommonMark specification. This allows for advanced Markdown features and customization.
Markup Languages
Supports various markup languages including Markdown, AsciiDoc, and reStructuredText (RST).
Cons
Learning Curve
Can be complex for beginners due to its wide range of features and options, and the Go-based templating system can be complicated for those unfamiliar with the language.
Configuration
Initial setup and configuration can be more involved compared to simpler tools.
MkDocs
Pros
Ease of Use
Simple and straightforward, especially for documentation websites.
Configuration
Minimal configuration required to get started.
Documentation
Good documentation and a friendly community.
Cons
Performance
Slower than Hugo for large sites.
Customization
Limited theming and customization options compared to Hugo and Docusaurus.
Extensibility:
Fewer plugins and extensions available.
Markdown Flavor
Uses Python-Markdown, which adheres strictly to John Gruber's Markdown specification. This includes a strict 4-space indentation requirement for code blocks, which can be less flexible compared to other Markdown flavors.
Markup Languages
Primarily supports Markdown, with limited support for other markup languages.
Docusaurus
Pros
Ease of Use
Designed for documentation with a strong focus on ease of use.
Customization
Good theming options and support for React components.
Integration
Works well with existing JavaScript/React projects.
Community
Active community college and support from Facebook.
Markdowns Flavor
Uses Remark/MDX, which supports JSX within Markdown, enabling complex interactions and component embedding.
Cons
Performance
Slower build times compared to Hugo.
Learning Curve
Requires knowledge of React and JavaScript for advanced customization.
Size
Heavier dependencies due to its React-based architecture.
Markup Languages
Primarily supports Markdown with JSX, limited support for other markup languages.
5. Consequences
Positive
Performance
Fast build times will improve the development workflow and scalability of the website.
Flexibility
Ability to handle various content types and complex structures.
Community
Access to a large number of themes, plugins, and support resources.
Markdown
Support for advanced Markdown features and customization options.
Markup Languages
Support for multiple markup languages increases flexibility in content authoring.
Negative
Learning Curve
Team members will need to invest time in learning Hugo's configuration and capabilities.
Complexity
Initial setup may be more involved, requiring careful planning and configuration.
ADR Static Site Generator (SSG)
Architectural Decision Records (ADR) on a Static Site Generator (SSG) for a project documentation site.
1. State
2. Context
Our project requires the generation of a static website. The website will contain documentation, articles, guides and other static content. The primary contenders for the static site generator (SSG) are Hugo, MkDocs, and Docusaurus.
3. Decision Drivers
Ease of Use
Performance
Customization and Extensibility
Community and Support
Integration
Markdown Flavor
Markup Languages
3. Decision
Hugo
Hugo was selected due to its superior performance, flexibility, extensive customization options, robust Markdown support through Goldmark, and support for multiple markup languages including AsciiDoc and reStructuredText. Although it has a steeper learning curve and more complex configuration compared to MkDocs, its speed and ability to handle large sites efficiently make it the best choice for our project. Additionally, Hugo's strong community support and comprehensive documentation ensure that any challenges can be addressed effectively.
4. Considered
Hugo
Pros
Performance
Flexibility
Customization
Documentation
Content Management
Markdown Flavor
Markup Languages
Cons
Learning Curve
Configuration
MkDocs
Pros
Ease of Use
Configuration
Documentation
Cons
Performance
Customization
Extensibility:
Markdown Flavor
Markup Languages
Docusaurus
Pros
Ease of Use
Customization
Integration
Community
Markdowns Flavor
Cons
Performance
Learning Curve
Size
Markup Languages
5. Consequences
Positive
Performance
Flexibility
Community
Markdown
Markup Languages
Negative
Learning Curve
Complexity
6. References