[FireInsight]

While Astro technically competes directly with Zola or Hugo, a comparison with them would not make sense. The chart is not about build times or anything like that, it's about the average performance on real world sites built with the framework. Astro with first-class support for interactivity through JS frameworks, and triest to compete with other JS frameworks in speed.

While Hugo and Zola can generate light and heavy websites easily depending on the developer's choices, Astro aims to express that it's easier to create fast websites, even ones that are interactive, with Astro than with a fuller framework like NextJS.

[thealchemistdev]

Yeah. I thought about that right after I commented, but their website says "content-focused" not interactivity. Every frontend developer who uses a framework (myself included) will eventually learn the hard lesson of "use the effing platform". Any barrier to serving and delivering HTML, CSS, and JS (for interactivity only where you need it) is a waste of time and energy. Maybe not at the start, but most certainly in the long term through package depreciation, repo weaponizations, or political activism.

The core web standards are designed for future and possibly non-human archaeologists to be able to view just about every web document created since 1991.

World's first website. http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html

So if the job is to deliver content focused websites, then the best tools are those that are designed to get out of your way. Astro and the every other tool that is not a single executable is completely outclassed due to their reliance on package management ecosystems. People want fast consumption and production? Send fewer bytes over the wire, use less bytes to produce them, and let the platform do its job.

But this is just like my opinion, man. None of this matters if the power goes out. Fun game, though.