3 ms·
Haven't done any benchmarks myself, but I'd be keen to find out if a static site loaded up with JS design elements, a product store, comments and analytics code
by luxpir 11y ago
Haven't done any benchmarks myself, but I'd be keen to find out if a static site loaded up with JS design elements, a product store, comments and analytics code would load any quicker than a CMS with PHP caching, system caching and microcaching to handle bursts on a lightweight webserver such as Nginx.
The article is frustratingly biased in this regard. Static sites should just play to their strengths, otherwise you probably want a CMS that will act like a static site when it needs to.
- mariusz79 11y agoIt's not even about performance as it is about security. Imagine having to install only basic web server, with no database server and X language interpreter.No need to worry about sql injection and such. And you get performance boost for free.
- luxpir 11y agoAccepted that SQL security is pretty optimal with statics. How about security of your data when buying through 3rd party JS stores, commenting through 3rd party add-ons, being tracked by 3rd party snippets, etc. Hard to deny that the additional functionality most people end up wanting beyond a simple online journal brings additional security risks, whatever the framework.