From: Peter Booth <pbooth@...>
Date: 2009-03-08T09:26:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Static web site generators

I'm a bit of an obsessive about website performance. I recently  
ditched a domain registrar because the admin tools all had five to ten  
second delays on each page.

Static generators can stop us having to waste chunks of our life  
waiting on piss-poor dynamic web apps. Many dynamic sites really could  
be static. Most dynamic sites are untuned (thus slow). What would you  
think of a store that always had a ten minute checkout line? This is  
really no different. If you deploy a slow website you are saying to  
your users "your time isn't important to me"

So the thought of choosing a dynamic site over static seems bizarre to  
me.

Peter Booth
(917) 445 5663 peter_booth@mac.com

On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:27 PM, trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 7, 5:18 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to  
>> be
>> the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.
>>
>> Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
>
> There certainly nothing wrong with static site generation --in some
> ways static sites are better. And those are all good tools and there
> are others as well. But, I always find myself moving to a dynamic site
> in the end. It's just a hell of a lot more convenient.
>
> I would be cool if some of these static site generators had a cache
> and generate on demand mode.
>
> T.
>