Why does this kind of "complex" matter? By all means code if you enjoy it, but it sounds like minutes of coding saved you seconds of installing something that already exists, and got you a setup that is less standard and so harder to maintain.
The real "complexity" that matters, as someone who has used most modern static site generators and front-end js frameworks, is in not knowing how or what broke, and how to fix it, when inevitably something breaks. E.g: with jekyll if you develop or modify content on a windows box, test locally, and then push to GH Pages, but Pages builds the site using unix, and some ruby gem or jekyll plugin doesn't work consistently across them, and it takes a good bit of experience and googling around the errors to find a fix or a workaround.
If you essentially made your own static site generator, at least you would know what went wrong and come up with the straightest line to the resolution (even if that's just modifying the build output by hand in an extreme case).
I'm not defending the decision, but I have worked with several folks who have this approach to using their own tools — and at times I lean in this direction too, until I have encountered breakages more often than I care to "understand them" by using my own tools — and hence trying to dissect the motivations behind that choice.