Static blogs don't have a drawback. Websites should be static unless the content changes more frequently than it takes to build the site. Just go with static.
Static blogs with pages generated at build time often load faster than pages that must be dynamically rendered at the time of request. A few reasons why this is so are: with static pages, there’s no backend processing with every page load, the static pages can often be cached, and there is often minimal JavaScript for the client’s browser to have to do.
Static is way more secure. A site with only static pages is more or less impenetrable. Obviously it is more awkward to update.
WordPress was a disaster area at one time, not so much now. But if you look at the kind of attacks your site gets over http/s, it's that kind is stuff which is in the majority.
static blogs should be the way... except for a little more difficulty in updating(just comparatively), they beat dynamic blogs in all aspects. Security, speed, hosting, setup, simplicity, everywhere.
You can use hugo or jekyll. I personally prefer Hugo.
I have my own static blog running completely free on github's hosting hosting. Thus, I get for free incredible speed, security, and and hosting.
7 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 35.5 ms ] threadHere’s an article that you may find illuminating:
https://www.section.io/engineering-education/client-side-ren...
WordPress was a disaster area at one time, not so much now. But if you look at the kind of attacks your site gets over http/s, it's that kind is stuff which is in the majority.
You can use hugo or jekyll. I personally prefer Hugo.
I have my own static blog running completely free on github's hosting hosting. Thus, I get for free incredible speed, security, and and hosting.
Shameless plug: if you need help setting up your blog for free on github using hugo, you can refer my blog here: https://nitinbansal.dev/posts/private-repo-gitlab-cicd-githu...