Manual HTML Generation vs Static Site Generator

Developers should learn manual HTML generation to build a foundational understanding of web markup, which is essential for debugging, optimizing, and customizing web pages beyond what automated tools can offer meets developers should use static site generators for content-heavy websites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing sites where content changes infrequently. Here's our take.

Manual HTML Generation

Nice Pick

Developers should learn manual HTML generation to build a foundational understanding of web markup, which is essential for debugging, optimizing, and customizing web pages beyond what automated tools can offer

Pros

• It is particularly useful for creating lightweight static websites, prototyping interfaces, ensuring strict compliance with web standards, and working in environments where minimal dependencies are required, such as embedded systems or performance-critical applications
• Related to: html5, css

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Static Site Generator

Developers should use Static Site Generators for content-heavy websites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing sites where content changes infrequently

Pros

• They are ideal when performance, security, and low hosting costs are priorities, as static files reduce server load and vulnerabilities compared to dynamic server-rendered sites
• Related to: markdown, git

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Manual HTML Generation is a methodology while Static Site Generator is a tool. We picked Manual HTML Generation based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Manual HTML Generation wins

Based on overall popularity. Manual HTML Generation is more widely used, but Static Site Generator excels in its own space.