When comparing Yeoman vs Gulp, the Slant community recommends Yeoman for most people. In the question“What are the best workflow wrappers for front-end development?” Yeoman is ranked 1st while Gulp is ranked 5th. The most important reason people chose Yeoman is:
Yeoman has an active community with new generators being created at a rapid pace. Because of the momentum behind the community, you can expect good support and adoption for new tools and frameworks promptly after they come out.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Active community
Yeoman has an active community with new generators being created at a rapid pace. Because of the momentum behind the community, you can expect good support and adoption for new tools and frameworks promptly after they come out.
Pro Huge number of generators for scaffolding your project
Yeoman generators allow you to quickly set up a new project. Invoked with the scaffolding tool 'yo' they provide a boilerplate & tooling selection. There are over 1000 generators, including generators for ember, angular & backbone, to choose from, the majority of which are community maintained.
Pro Allows you to choose between different build systems
Yeoman supports both major build systems - Grunt and Gulp. These build systems will help you automate tasks such as minification & concatenation of files, running tests, deploying and live-updating your webpage among many others.
Pro Free and open source
Yeoman is free, open source and licensed under BSD.
Pro Support for the package manager of your choice
Yeoman supports both Bower and npm, and is flexible in regard to tools to allow it to work with a wider range of project requirements.
Pro Standardized workflow process
Yeoman wants webapp development to be more standardized under the "Yeoman workflow" banner. As such it encourages the use of a specific combination of tools - a scaffolding tool (yo), a build tool (grunt, gulp, etc) and a package manager (bower, npm).
Pro Generators can be composed with other generators
Yeoman's scaffolding system allows generators to rely on other generators allowing for better code reuse and standardization between generators that use a common sub-component.
Pro Cross-platform
As a command line tool it works on OS X, Linux & Windows.
Pro Works with the package manager directly
Yeoman doesn't just scaffold your project, but also helps you integrate with your package manager directly, so you can manage your entire project with it.
Pro Developers can create their own plugins
Developers can also create their own Yeoman generator which are practically plugins with which Yeoman works. Generators are basically Node.js modules and can be created just like any other Node module.
There is also a very detailed and useful guide on how to create a generator on the Yeoman official website.
Pro Large plugin ecosystem
Currently gulp offers a selection of 1000+ plugins and it is growing rapidly.
Pro Focuses on code instead of configuration
This depends on your style, but gulp is closer to the code, the actual execution isn't hidden by multiple layers and it's much easier to customize the build system without writing bloated modules. This also brings rather small configuration files.
Pro Allows creating task dependencies
Any task can be set to have other tasks as dependencies. The dependencies are specified through piping streams, and tasks run concurrently if they do not block in dependencies.
Pro It is possible to use projects that use streams without plugins
Since Gulp just uses streams at its core, you don't actually need a plugin wrapper to use a project that uses streams. If you use this approach, the you don't even have to worry about plugin maintenance at all, and get the bleeding edge updates as soon as they come out even if the plugin hasn't been updated. It also means if a project happens to not have a plugin, you don't need to write a new one, you can just use it as is.
Pro Streaming build system makes it easier to apply code transformations
In gulp, it's easy to pipe multiple steps together which you commonly need with build systems. For example, you may need to compile the javascript source files, then package them together, and then minify it. The streaming system makes this much easier.
Additionally, it improves performance since all operations are done in memory (compared to I/O operations) and avoids the need of unnecessarily compiling files (compared to Grunt that has to compile all files even if just one has changed).
Pro Chaining API that's simple and elegant
In Gulp, the transforms are performed through chains which makes it easier to understand the order of operations, and easier to modify it.
Pro Concurrency allows for high-speed perfomance
Because streams in Gulp use pipes to establish dependency order, they are parallel by default without having to rely on plugins or hacks.
Pro Minimizes disk operations for improved performance
Because Gulp is built using streams, it can store intermediate transformations in memory and defer writing to disk until the very end. This improves performance by not requiring expensive blocking disk operations for task dependencies.
Pro The configuration file is easily readable
Gulp's configuration file is actually very readable because it's actual JavaScript instead of a large file of JSON objects. The entry barrier is very low for developers who have never used a task runner before and it's API is very simple, with only 4 methods.
Pro Gulp modules are usable without Gulp
Because Gulp is built on top of the streaming API, you don't actually need gulp to use them. This could be helpful if you want to re-use those modules outside of gulp, possibly for testing, and using the same modules would be more consistent.
Pro Gulp tasks run from terminal
Cons
Con Combining Yeoman and backend frameworks can bring problems
Combining Yeoman and a backend framework such as Django, Rails or Laravel can create problem because the project structure of Yeoman may not be compatible with that of the backend project. It can be tuned to work but for small projects it can be relatively time consuming.
Con Dead
Gulp is dead, hasn't been updated in 4 years.
Con Rapidly changing API
While it's good that the gulp maintainers want the api to be as good as possible, it comes at the expense of stability. The upcoming gulp 4.0 release has another update to the way dependency management works which will require everyone to update their build scripts.
It also makes it hard to look up information on best practices as the best practices keep changing, making a lot of the blog posts and questions about gulp out of date.
Con You need to know some limitations that are not very intuitive
There are some features in Gulp which may not be very intuitive, or that otherwise should have been the default features instead of having to implement them through arguments. For example, to keep the correct folder structure when you are copying a file, you have to add {base: "lib/"}
as an argument.
Con No incremental building
Con Not suited for big and complex apps
Writing gulpfile for complex app which consists of many source types is very cumbersome and flawy process. You'll know when you want to move to webpack.