1. 6

    This increased efficiency is reflected in lower costs and, potentially, higher revenues.

    If you’re going to make this kind of statement, it would ideally be backed up with some numbers. The only numbers in the post are the score on the Google PageSpeed Insights.

    It’s worth noting that on that metric, the transition to a static site generator achieved the same score as the optimized Wordpress installation: 99. The missing 1% was caused by a caching issue with Google Analytics that persisted after the transition and was resolved by using a CloudFlare app (which I assume works around that issue in some way.)

    In the same way that you should select a a relational, key/value, or document database based on how you need to interact with your data, the choice of static site generator or more traditional CMS should be driven by how you intend to interact with your content.

    The static/dynamic debate, like most in technology, is a pendulum that swings back and forth. Right now, it is swinging toward static, although that trend is not necessarily driven by need as much as herd mentality. I don’t think the general advice to replace all traditional CMS systems with static site generators is driven by a measured comparison of all pros and cons. Here’s what you get with a static site generator:

    • Better performance as a result of pre-computing HTML content at authoring time.
    • The ability to interact with your content using familiar software development tools and workflows.

    But here is what you give up:

    • The ability to make content changes from any computer on the internet, no git/GitHub/development tools/text editors required.
    • The ability to use a variety of useful WYSIWYG editors to create content. WYSIWYG word processors are nice in a lot of ways and probably preferred for many styles of writing.
    • The ability to do anything dynamic on the server at page load time.

    Ultimately it comes down to what you need from a productivity standpoint. If you really just want to write prose, it’s probably worth using Wordpress, Ghost, etc. instead of a static site generator. This will allow you to focus on the content and not the tools. I think many people wish they wrote more, and at least for me, messing around with static site generator tools is a distraction from writing. But if you want to use Markdown and edit your content as if it were source code or have more control over the toolchain used to create your content, then perhaps a static site generator is the way to go.

    1. 4

      Thank you for your comment. I’m sorry I didn’t get the numbers, let’s just say that I saved 10$/month on hosting. I agree with you about pros/cons, but for me, the pros overcome the cons anytime. And I can change the content from any device in the world if I have access to Github repository - I’ve added hooks on Netlify to trigger deployment from my repo. Either way, thank you for digging deep into this topic, I like a quality discussion.

      1. 3

        Thanks for posting what you saved! Netlify looks like a pretty useful service for a lot of projects that don’t need a backend, and this is the first I have heard of it.

        I think I left out one of the other pros of static site generators, which is that everything (templates, configuration, and content) cab be kept in a single repository. With a dynamic setup, there is usually a database, which makes deployment or site migration more complicated. Anyone who has had to move a Wordpress site between hosts has wished for this!

      2. 3

        The big reason I prefer static site generators is that I can write content while offline. This is huge to me, as I do most of my writing and editing while commuting.

      1. 3

        Thank you for this! I tried to move my Wordpress blog to Jekyll but stalled because I really didn’t want to learn the Ruby to do some customizations. (This was basically the same problem I had with Movable Type back in the day.)

        1. 2

          I’m happy this article was helpful to you.

        1. 7

          Once you reach enlightenment and realize that stuff like comments is just useless fluff in your blog, static rendering is the Only Way^tm. I’ve been running a statically generated Blosxom blog for almost a decade now.

          1. 4

            I’m glad we’re on the same page here. I think static is just more performant in every way.