4 ms·
True, thanks for the link. Shame that author uses Wordpress. I'd advice him to use a static page generator for the future.
by ship_it 9y ago
True, thanks for the link. Shame that author uses Wordpress. I'd advice him to use a static page generator for the future.
- throwanem 9y agoI use Wordpress, too, because I'm more interested in publishing content than in dinking around endlessly with the latest fad in content management tooling.
- ue_ 9y agoTo be fair, static blog generators have been around for years, and their use is hardly a fad, considering the number of blogs that people host on github etc. It hasn't caught on as much among non-tech types, but it's certainly not a fad, and the solutions are mature, usable and open source. I can understand wanting various features that only a dynamic blog offers (like commenting without Javascript), and I run such a blog myself.
- y4mi 9y agoThere are tools for that as well. Staticman for example.
- 18nleung 9y agoWordpress is still essentially the status quo outside of technical circles and for non-technical people I'd recommend it over most other static site generators.
- dsr_ 9y agoUsing Wordpress to generate a static site is a useful thing, too. Improves both the security and the speed.
- throwanem 9y agoThere's a whole pile of caching plugins for it, too. I can't speak to their relative quality, though; I just stuck Cloudflare in front of my site and called it a day. Perhaps I will come to regret that.