Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWintersmith vs JBake
When comparing Wintersmith vs JBake, the Slant community recommends Wintersmith for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Wintersmith is ranked 3rd while JBake is ranked 26th. 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 Server included
Localhost server is included and can be used to preview content during editing process.
Pro Blog Aware
RSS feed, archive and tag support. Posts/Topics are a first-class citizen in jbake.
Pro Runs on / Control from the JVM
The site generator is just a specific usage of the JBake Java API. As such, jbake is easily integrated into other JVM software.
Pro Typical inputs
Markdown, asciidoc, plain HTML is supported
Pro Open Source (MIT License)
boosts permissive MIT License.
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 Runs on the JVM
JVM is a double-edged sword (startup time, memory usage, CPU overhead, ...) which might be considered overkill for a static site generator.
