When comparing Harp vs Sitegen, the Slant community recommends Harp for most people. In the question“What are the best static site generators?” Harp is ranked 29th while Sitegen is ranked 32nd. The most important reason people chose Harp is:
Rather than regenerate the whole site when a file changes, Harp only reloads what is necessary, keeping the compile time fast.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion 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 Easy configuration
You configure the site with a site.moon file. It is written in MoonScript.
Pro Powerful templating
It uses the cosmo templating language. It enables you to inject stuff into the page as it is being generated.
Pro Extendable through plugins
It has a plugin system. It comes bundled with some plugins already, like syntax highlighting. You can write your own plugins.
Pro HTML and Markdown
Pages and templates can be written in HTML or Markdown
Pro Easy
It's pretty easy to get started with.
Cons
Con Limited extensibility
There are no plugins available to extend the functionality or language support of Harp.