Why I Switched: Migrating My Blog from Jekyll to Zola

For a while now, my blog has been running on Jekyll, a solid static site generator that's been around for ages. It served me well, powering this corner of the internet where I share thoughts on Linux, CLI tools, web development, and the occasional motorcycle musing. But as my needs evolved and my desire for faster build times and a more streamlined workflow grew, I started looking for alternatives. That's when Zola caught my eye.

Why Migrate? The Pull Towards Zola

Jekyll is fantastic, but over time, I found myself wanting a few things that Zola seems to offer more directly:

• Build Speed: As my content grew, Jekyll's build times started to creep up. I wanted something snappier, something that felt more responsive even when generating a hundred pages.
• Single Binary: The idea of a single executable for a static site generator is incredibly appealing. No complex Ruby environment to manage, no version conflicts. Just download, run, and go. This resonates heavily with my CLI-first workflow.
• Rust Ecosystem: I'm increasingly drawn to Rust's performance, safety, and concurrency guarantees. Zola being built in Rust meant it likely offered excellent performance and reliability.
• Simplicity and Features: Zola's templating language (Tera) is powerful, and its built-in features like shortcodes and its handling of sections and pages felt very intuitive.

The Migration Process: Less Painful Than Expected

Migrating from Jekyll to Zola involved a few key steps:

1. Content Conversion: Jekyll uses Liquid templating and typically Markdown files with TOML front matter. Zola uses Tera templating and TOML front matter. The transition for most Markdown files was straightforward. The main effort was ensuring front matter was correctly translated, especially for tags and dates.
2. Theme Adaptation: I found a theme that fit my aesthetic – anemone. Adapting it involved understanding its template structure and making minor tweaks to fit my content organization.
3. Configuration: Translating _config.yml settings to zola.toml was relatively simple, with Zola's configuration structure being quite clear.

The biggest hurdle was ensuring my content structure matched Zola's expectations, especially for the blog section. As we've seen, getting Zola to recognize a blog section and its posts correctly requires careful setup.

Zola's Benefits in Practice

Since switching, the difference has been noticeable:

• Build Times: Zola's build times are blazingly fast. Whether I'm making a small change or a large update, the site regenerates in seconds.
• Simplicity: Managing Zola is a breeze. A single binary means no dependency hell.
• Performance: The generated static sites are incredibly performant.

Final Thoughts

Migrating from Jekyll to Zola has been a positive experience. It aligned perfectly with my preference for fast, efficient tools and a CLI-centric workflow. If you're looking for a modern, high-performance static site generator, Zola is definitely worth considering.