Harp vs Poole
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted blogging platforms options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | Harp | Poole |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Read-the-docs project |
| Health score | 66 · Good | 0 · At risk |
| Status | Actively maintained | Archived |
| Category | Blogging Platforms | Blogging Platforms |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | source, binary | source, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 4,995 | ★ 31 |
| First released | 2013 | 2009 |
| Replaces | Jekyll | Jekyll |
What are Harp and Poole?
Harp
Harp is a static web server and site generator that serves Jade, Markdown, EJS, CoffeeScript, Sass, LESS, and Stylus as HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without any configuration. It can compile a project to a deployable static site.
- Zero-config preprocessing
- Built-in web server
- Compiles to static site
- Multiple template languages
Poole
Poole is a markup-agnostic, single-file static website generator written in Python that keeps the build process deliberately tiny. It is suited for small personal sites and blogs where minimalism is preferred.
- Single-file generator
- Markup-agnostic
- Embedded Python in pages
- Tiny footprint
Harp vs Poole: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: Poole's repository is archived and no longer developed, while Harp is actively maintained. Harp is written in JavaScript, while Poole is built with Python. Poole is the lighter option, starting around 64 MB of RAM against 128 MB for Harp. Poole is the more established project (first released 2009), while Harp arrived in 2013. Harp has the considerably larger community, at 4,995 GitHub stars versus 31.
Why pick each one
Choose Harp if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (5k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
Choose Poole if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Harp or Poole better?
Harp is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Poole if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Harp and Poole free and open-source?
Yes. Harp is licensed under MIT and Poole under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Harp and Poole with Docker?
Harp: check the project docs for container support. Poole: check the project docs for container support.
Which is lighter on resources, Harp or Poole?
Poole has the smaller minimum footprint at 64 MB of RAM, compared to about 128 MB for Harp. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.