What are the benefits and drawbacks of using a static site generator for API documentation?

An SSG, like Docusaurus, is something new for me. Contrasting them with the time-tested interactive API docs from OpenAPI, I was initially puzzled: why choose this approach? And although I remain a supporter of the good old Swagger, I can see some benefits: - No server-side processing is needed for each request. This definitely reduces server load (if that’s still a concern) and enhances security by eliminating certain potential attacks, like DDoS. - Customization flexibility. With an SSG, you and your developers have full control over the web resource design compared to “rigid” tools like Swagger. - Possibly easier collaboration. Keeping source files in a VCS, like Git, offers more opportunities for change review and maintenance.

SSG pre-renders all pages, which makes them incredibly fast to load since there's no need for server-side processing or database queries. Since there's no dynamic server-side processing, static sites are generally more secure against certain types of attacks like SQL injection, etc.

Performance: Static sites are extremely fast to load since all the content is pre-rendered and served as static HTML files. This leads to a great user experience. Security: Static sites are less vulnerable to attacks like SQL injection or cross-site scripting since there is no dynamic server-side code. Cost-effective: Hosting static sites is generally much cheaper than hosting dynamic websites that require server infrastructure and databases. Scalability: Static sites can handle high traffic volumes without the need for complex server setups. Simplicity: Static site generators abstract away many of the complexities of web development, allowing developers to focus on content creation rather than infrastructure.

If API documentation needs to include features that require server-side processing (e.g., user authentication or personalized content), workarounds need to be found.

Limited Interactivity: Static sites have limited interactivity and dynamic features compared to database-driven websites. Adding complex interactivity requires additional tooling. Lack of Real-time Updates: Content updates require rebuilding and redeploying the entire site, which can be time-consuming for large sites. Difficulty with User-generated Content: Accepting and managing user-generated content (e.g., comments, forms) can be more challenging on static sites. Learning Curve: Developers need to learn the specific static site generator tool and its ecosystem, which can have a steeper learning curve than traditional web development.

The first drawback of an SSG, which is also its defining feature, is quite obvious: - Lack of interactivity: Unlike interactive API docs from OpenAPI, SSG-generated documentation is static, significantly limiting users’ ability to explore and test APIs directly on the documentation hub. Other drawbacks mostly pertain to technical challenges and complex processes: - Initial setup complexity: Customizing an SSG might require considerable effort and specific knowledge, including familiarity with templating languages and frontend technologies. - Manual updates: Each content update requires rebuilding and redeploying the website, which can be frustrating when dealing with frequent changes, large documentation sets, or multiple dependencies.

Making changes to a static site often involves regenerating the entire site. This can be time-consuming, especially for large documentation sets with frequent updates.

"Form follows function". and this is especially true for API documentation. Using a static site generator (SSG) offers several benefits for API documentation, such as fast load times, enhanced security, and easy version control. SSGs like Jekyll or Hugo generate static files, reducing server-side processing and improving performance. However, drawbacks include limited interactivity and the need for technical expertise to set up and maintain the site. Updates can also be more cumbersome compared to dynamic solutions. Alternatives to SSGs include CMS like WordPress or dedicated API documentation tools like Swagger, which offer more flexibility and ease of use but may sacrifice some performance and security benefits.

Overall, static site generators are an excellent choice for websites with primarily static content, where performance, security, and cost-effectiveness are the primary concerns. However, for websites requiring more interactivity and real-time updates, a traditional dynamic web application approach may be more suitable.