&gt; The whole point of a &quot;static site generator&quot; should be for it to be SIMPLE.<p>This is incorrect.  The point of a static site generator is to generate static site content. <i>You</i> may use it in a simple manner, but there are many projects and companies that maintain huge, complex websites using static site generators like Middleman and Jekyll (along with various proprietary static site generators), in combination with content managers like Contentful. I&#x27;m talking hundreds if not thousands of pages, ecommerce, massive blog, multiple content types, etc. etc.  I&#x27;ve worked on such projects, as have many others around here.<p>I&#x27;m glad that enlightened companies are increasingly open to using static generators for such websites, since many (possibly most) of them don&#x27;t need to run PHP or Rails if the site doesn&#x27;t have dynamic content on the frontend.<p>For such organizations, the point of static site generators is to produce vastly more secure and faster sites that are much easier to maintain and less expensive to host.  Not to mention the ease of caching.<p>The OPs project, nice as it is for a small, simple project, would be impossibly simple for such projects.  Anyone who tried to use it for a project of the scale I&#x27;ve described would just end up re-writing an inferior version of Middleman.<p>ssgen sounds like a cool project, and it also sounds like you&#x27;re using the right tool for the job in your projects, but don&#x27;t make the mistake of discounting a tool as useless or too complex just because it&#x27;s not the right one for your purposes.