Static site generators are weird

I love static sites. Pre-rendered files are usually faster, lower maintenance, easier to secure, and more. Static site generators let you create these sites much more easily, which is fabulous.

But I believe most static site generators are weird.

SSGs like Jekyll, Gatsby, and Hugo require you to learn their special way of doing things. You have to answer questions like:

• How do you write HTML templates?
• How do you manage CSS and JavaScript?
• How do you deal with images and videos?
• How do you manage routing?
• How do you generate RSS feeds?
• How do you do unusual things, like one-off pages or redirects?

You have to understand many of these in order to build a production-ready site, and every SSG is a different world.

For example, my blog (which you’re reading right now!) has used Jekyll, Gatsby, and Hugo. For each one, I’ve had to learn its templating system, its asset system, its RSS feed system, and much more. Each project is thoughtfully designed, but totally its own thing.

That’s not to mention the majority of SSGs, which are custom-made for one website. These projects tend to overflow with personality—rare programming languages, jagged feature sets, and flowery READMEs are on fine display here—and are often prime examples of the atypical. Weirdness at its best.

This is not a critique of any particular project or of SSGs in general. I think this a lot of this weirdness is essential complexity, which I think most SSG developers would tell you. But I still think they’re weird!

I expect to receive some feedback on this post like, “Static site generator X isn’t weird! Everything it does is normal!” I haven’t had that experience, and I envy you.

Static site generators are great. And being weird is good! And I think static site generators are weird.