I agree: I've tempted the all-from-scratch way in pure html for my small web corner and well, I give up, it's simply too long to craft a modern website on basic html. I've tried an RSS-only corner but obviously it's not visible, ending up in Hugo/org-mode simply because it's ready made even if needlessly complicated.
The Static Site Paradox
51–60 of 370 posts
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#52Static sites are great until you need to have a contact form or want to add basic comments. Yes, you can deploy javascript that uses external services to add such functionality to static sites- but with a basic WordPress site, you get everything right out of the box.
A contact form is a terrible alternative to an email address. Many sites have dropped comments altogether. Yes, these things might be nice-to-haves, but they shouldn't be the factor that determines whether you have a static site or a scripted one.
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#53Maybe I misunderstand, but this feels misdirected. As someone who's employed by "greedy clowns" (web development agencies I guess?), I continuously observe that people pay for what saves them time. Our entire profession is built on this premise. If you have a person doing interesting things, does it really matter if they write their own HTML or pay someone else to write it? The web is turning increasingly monolithic…
> As someone who's employed by "greedy clowns" (web development agencies I guess?) Maybe click the link so you don't have to guess (wrong)?
Am I wrong? I did click the link. I'm just assuming that the author of this post is not explicitly referring to two particular greedy clowns, but more generally to the WordPress ecosystem. Because it's actually very easy for normal people to avoid being locked into Automattic and WP Engine in particular.
Edit: just made the connection between the domain of this post and your username. So really just wondering what you meant specifically.
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is still not a censuses as to the definition of a static website Static website can be served by `cat index.html`
> Static website can be served by `cat index.html` For sure, but that's not a sufficient definition. You need to add some constraints to the contents of the html. Otherwise, you can put a huge javascript program in there that hallucinates a new page each time you render it. This shouldn't count as "static".
> This shouldn't count as "static".
Why not? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line, apart from "absolutely no javascript at all"?
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#55> Whenever we fail to make simple things easy in software engineering
Mandatory Rich Hickey "Simple Made Easy" link => https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?si=IY8mWzR3C-ru5Das
"This keynote was given at Strange Loop 2011, and is perhaps the best known and most highly regarded of Rich's many excellent talks, ushering in a new way to think about the problems of software design and the constant fight against complexity."
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#56Static sites are great until you need to have a contact form or want to add basic comments. Yes, you can deploy javascript that uses external services to add such functionality to static sites- but with a basic WordPress site, you get everything right out of the box.
A contact form is a terrible alternative to an email address. Many sites have dropped comments altogether. Yes, these things might be nice-to-haves, but they shouldn't be the factor that determines whether you have a static site or a scripted one.
I have to politely disagree. If you ever run a website for business/portfolio etc. the number of people more likely to contact you using a contact form is far greater than just telling them to email you. Contact forms also scale well if you need to categorize and channel the queries to different people or need more specific info.
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Static website can be served by `cat index.html` For sure, but that's not a sufficient definition. You need to add some constraints to the contents of the html. Otherwise, you can put a huge javascript program in there that hallucinates a new page each time you render it. This shouldn't count as "static".
> This shouldn't count as "static". Why not? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line, apart from "absolutely no javascript at all"?
That's a good line to draw!
Static = no scripting (either server-side or client-side)
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
A contact form is a terrible alternative to an email address. Many sites have dropped comments altogether. Yes, these things might be nice-to-haves, but they shouldn't be the factor that determines whether you have a static site or a scripted one.
I have to politely disagree. If you ever run a website for business/portfolio etc. the number of people more likely to contact you using a contact form is far greater than just telling them to email you. Contact forms also scale well if you need to categorize and channel the queries to different people or need more specific info.
Fair enough. I would argue that we're probably talking about different use cases. If you're at the stage of categorising and channelling queries to different people, your site is probably already "heavyweight" enough to justify a backend anyway.
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This shouldn't count as "static". Why not? If it doesn't, where do you draw the line, apart from "absolutely no javascript at all"?
That's a good line to draw! Static = no scripting (either server-side or client-side)
I'd like to reserve the term "no scripting" for that :) I guess if we popularise the term "no backend", the two could co-exist. I want to talk about sites that are just a collection of flat files, with no server-side processing; for me, "static" does that job perfectly.
Re: The Static Site Paradox
#60Most people's expectations of what a "basic website" should do have gone way up over time. Even as a programmer, I've fallen into the static site generator trap a few times. It's annoying to start a side project with a static site generator and then realise I want to add a small feature and suddenly I wish I'd just started with a simple Rails or PHP app. Nowadays, if I want a static site I just start with a folder of…
I run a blog for an organization. We do one post per business day on average, with typically around 3 posters. I set it up years ago with Django/Wagtail/Puput and it has happily chugged along ever since. I can’t imagine how annoying it would be to manage if people were creating their own new files for every post and writing their own HTML…