1. 10
  1.  

  2. 7

    I don’t need tracking pixels, or sharing options, or a sidebar, or even a commenting system.

    …So then why do you need a dynamic website at all?

    Why not just run with a static website? It’s far less complex, and would cost you £0.00 per month instead of the ±£17.50 you pay per month.

    1. 5

      Maybe the author just likes using WordPress. For example, the typing interface, and all that stuff that typically don’t come with the static website option.

      I suppose that 18GBP is a fairly reasonable amount of money for an IT worker living in UK, so maybe it’s not about the money, here.

      1. 5

        As Enz says, I just prefer WordPress. I’ve had static sites in the past, but prefer to login, write a post, hit publish. I also know WordPress pretty well, so things like theme developement are easier for me on WP. That’s not to say I can’t do theme development on other platforms, of course, but I’m a creature of habit and the learning curve is lower for me on WP.

        Also, as Enz said, I’m in a fortunate position financially, so it isn’t about the money here - plus, let’s be honest, many people spend more than £18/month on Starbucks.

        I’m not sure how a static site would be free though? I’d still need to pay for hosting and I would still have a CDN.

        1. 5

          Personally, the $5/mo I pay for a entry-level VPS is among the best money I’m spending.

          I’m curious about the need for a CDN though. Does your site has enough traffic to motivate one?

          1. 1

            Probably not, but most of my traffic comes from the US and my server is in the UK. I don’t mind paying such a small amount to give the majority of my readers a better experience.

          2. 3

            I’m not sure how a static site would be free though? I’d still need to pay for hosting and I would still have a CDN.

            You can compile locally, deploy for free with Surge, and get a free SSL cert and CDN with CloudFlare. GitHub also does free hosting for static sites.

            1. 1

              Personally, I’d prefer to pay the money for a CDN than use Cloudflare.

        2. 4

          Decent enough tips for those using WordPress. Some other tricks would be making sure to use progressive JPEGs, not relying on 3rd party domains, not using JS etc.. These days using static site generators is popular, which are inherently easier to optimize. Caching works as expected with any decent web server, and compression is easy to get going (for apache2 just pop in mod_deflate). Any small assets like CSS or icons can be inlined, reducing the number of round trips. This will run fine on a Raspberry Pi, meaning your hosting costs are almost zero.

          1. 2

            Some great additional tips there, thanks. I wanted to keep the post high level, kind of a beginner’s guide for someone who has never looked into optimisation - I may do another post about going to the next level.

            1. 2

              If you need inspiration, I’ve written a bunch about porting my WordPress blog to the static site generator Pelican, under the pelican tag on my blog. The landing page weighs in at 6 KiB compressed at the moment, which I’m fairly happy with. I use the mobile emulation mode in Firefox (ctrl+shift+M) to try and gauge how the site works over very shitty connections. Even fairly image-heavy posts like this one still weighs in at no more than half a meg.

            2. 2

              Is that Raspberry Pi getting its internet access from a residential ISP? Have you noticed latency or bandwidth issues from having your server set up like that? (I had assumed that this was a somewhat unreliable way to run a server, but I’m not entirely sure why I think that.)

              1. 2

                100 Mbps is the norm in Sweden, so bandwidth is a non-issue. Even 1 Mbps would work honestly, if you keep media to a minimum. The real issue is having a stable-ish public IP so DNS/dyndns works.

            3. 3

              I can’t say I don’t agree with Wordpress. I’ve converted my blog from Wordpress to static (for fun) and haven’t gained a lot as it was already really optimized. Even if it’s just a blog, using a CMS offers a lot ouf of the box : 100% online editing (no build step), automatic image compression, programming posts…

              Now, as far as the performance optimisations are concerned, I’d use newest formats like webp for images (SVG for icons) and brotli for text (with their respective fallbacks).

              You can also provide users with responsive images: 1000px wide on a Retina display requires a 2000px wide image for a crisp display, but a user on a mobile device could do with a lighter image.

              You can also bet on server push to push your CSS as it’ll be needed by the browser.

              As for the VPS, I can’t agree more. In addition with the improved stability and performance, you just can set up and optimise the server however you want. Mine is a 3€ OVH VPS.

              For instance, with a custom built e-commerce (WordPress/WooCommerce) website, Gtmetrix gives me 95% on PageSpeed and and 80% on Yslow with a loading speed of around 3 sec (hosted in France, test server in Canada).