Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWintersmith vs Harp
When comparing Wintersmith vs Harp, the Slant community recommends Wintersmith for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Wintersmith is ranked 3rd while Harp is ranked 29th. 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)).
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Markdown support
Wintersmith has an extensive Markdown support. Default, it is rendered by Marked. However there are plugins available for others (such as Markdown-it).
Pro Templates
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.
Pro Compiles assets on request
Rather than regenerate the whole site when a file changes, Harp only reloads what is necessary, keeping the compile time fast.
Pro Supports popular languages
Harp supports a large variety of languages, including Jade, CoffeeScript, Stylus and Sass. See the full list here.
Cons
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.
Con Limited extensibility
There are no plugins available to extend the functionality or language support of Harp.
