When comparing DocPad vs Wintersmith, the Slant community recommends Wintersmith for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Wintersmith is ranked 5th while DocPad is ranked 6th. The most important reason people chose Wintersmith is:
Wintersmith has an extensive Markdown support. Default, it is rendered by [Marked](https://github.com/chjj/marked). However there are plugins available for [others](https://github.com/jnordberg/wintersmith/wiki/Plugins) (such as [Markdown-it](https://github.com/dwaite/wintersmith-markdown-it)).
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Built on Node
DocPad is published as an NPM module which makes it easy to integrate with an existing Node.js deployment.
Pro Has an active plug-in ecosystem
DocPad's has a large amount of plug-ins available to extend its functionality and compatibility with other language preprocessors and markup languages.
- CSS preprocessors include: LESS, SASS, Stylus, and Roole
- HTML markups include: Markdown, and Textile
- Templating engines include: Eco, Handlebars, Moustache, HAML, CoffeeKup, Jade, and Teacup
- JSON converters include: YAML and CSON
Pro Has Live Reload
DocPad has a Live Reload plug-in that leverages websockets to automatically update the blog content for users live on the site.
Pro Built on top of the Express framework
Although DocPad is a static site generator, if you find the need to, you can extend the site with the Express framework for dynamic content as well.
Pro Easy to deploy
Deployment plug-ins make deploying to hosting providers even easier, with plug-ins for GitHub Pages, AWS, and Google Storage.
Pro Prebuilt Skeletons
Skeletons are boilerplate setups to provide a baseline structure for you to fill content into.
Templating engine comes with Jade plugin and many third-party plugins.
Pro Very flexible
Wintersmith only has a predefined directory structure, everything else can built any way you want.
Pro Built on node.js
Node.js is a software platform for scalable server-side and networking applications.
Con Support for Handlebars templates is not mature - integration is awkward
Handlebars' philosophy of "no logic in templates" makes some things difficult:
- DocPad built-in template helpers aren't available by default - they have to be manually added/exposed
- DocPad's example template code often includes logic, which makes it impossible to use within Handlebars templates -- it has to be abstracted into custom helper functions.
- Can't pass objects to function calls from within HB templates.
Con More up-front investment to learn/use well
DocPad provides a LOT of extensibility and dynamic capability, which means there's more up-front investment to learn DocPad well -- and deviating from the defaults while maintaining project robustness may be difficult.
Con Written in CoffeeScript (which could be a Pro depending on your preference)
Con The default template engine (Eco) does not support multi-line code tags
Con Thin and disorganized documentation
The documentation for Wintersmith is lacking examples and clear explanations. It's also quite disorganized, making it difficult to find what you're looking for.