Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Harp vs Nanoc, the Slant community recommends Nanoc for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Nanoc is ranked 8th while Harp is ranked 29th. The most important reason people chose Nanoc is:
Nanoc is a good choice if you need to support a site with a more complex structure than a simple blog. Nanoc is more agnostic to the types of pages you have, and allows you to do finer tuned refinements like customizing the URL structure.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
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.
Pro Flexibly built
Nanoc is a good choice if you need to support a site with a more complex structure than a simple blog. Nanoc is more agnostic to the types of pages you have, and allows you to do finer tuned refinements like customizing the URL structure.
Pro Extensibile
Nanoc has a modular architecture which makes it easier to incorporate plugins and functionality from other projects as well as extend functionality.
Pro Helps you create multilingual sites
Nanoc takes multilingual sites into consideration and has features to make translations easier to implement.
Pro Unit testing integration
Nanoc has a check command to run tests against your site and make sure it meets requirements you define.
There are built in checks to validate HTML and CSS, as well as validating internal and external links.
Pro Works well with compile to languages
Nanoc is friendly with different CSS and HTML preprocessors, so you can easily use SASS, LESS, HAML, Markdown and more.
Cons
Con Limited extensibility
There are no plugins available to extend the functionality or language support of Harp.
