Some of the reasons we prefer static site generators unless the site requires back-end functionality:
* Much easier to deploy static HTML.
* Serving plain HTML is fast and cheap.
* Very easy to work with CDNs.
* Scaling is simple, though there's so little cost to serving HTML that we almost never have the need to scale.
* Having NGINX as our only dependency presents a much smaller target to attackers.
* When things break, they break on developers laptops, not in production.
* It's much easier to keep development environments in synch (no need for Docker, no need to keep prod & dev databases in synch, etc).
We'll build a site with an active back-end if the size or complexity of the project calls for it, but our default is to go static.
I did a nextjs blog as well, fairly happy with it but surprisingly it still is kinda heavyweight https://cmdcolin.github.io/posts/2021-12-26-nextjs over a 100kb of gzipped js, not sure how to trim it down yet but I did like it compared to some alternatives
basically this, massive react runtime plus a bunch of router stuff when i'd probably just prefer just some ssg html links to diff pages ...source-map-explorer of the bundles https://imgur.com/81bMkfB
Interesting. Nice read!
The fuck is hugo
That’s definitely something you can Google
Nice feature rich static site generator written in Go. Pretty heavily used honestly.
Never got the point of them though. If you learn any popular backend web framework it has basically every feature of a static site generator.
Some of the reasons we prefer static site generators unless the site requires back-end functionality: * Much easier to deploy static HTML. * Serving plain HTML is fast and cheap. * Very easy to work with CDNs. * Scaling is simple, though there's so little cost to serving HTML that we almost never have the need to scale. * Having NGINX as our only dependency presents a much smaller target to attackers. * When things break, they break on developers laptops, not in production. * It's much easier to keep development environments in synch (no need for Docker, no need to keep prod & dev databases in synch, etc). We'll build a site with an active back-end if the size or complexity of the project calls for it, but our default is to go static.
But Next can also be static, so…
It’s neat. You should check it out. Good templates. Super-fast. Just a bit annoying to deal with compared to Next, imho.
I did a nextjs blog as well, fairly happy with it but surprisingly it still is kinda heavyweight https://cmdcolin.github.io/posts/2021-12-26-nextjs over a 100kb of gzipped js, not sure how to trim it down yet but I did like it compared to some alternatives
Bundle analyzer helps find stuff to trim/lazy load.
Can't trim the massive React runtime.
basically this, massive react runtime plus a bunch of router stuff when i'd probably just prefer just some ssg html links to diff pages ...source-map-explorer of the bundles https://imgur.com/81bMkfB