4 ms·
Which makes the author's pointless aversion to static websites strange. No, you often really don't need to have a database, relational or not, to just do a web
by Semiapies 8y ago
Which makes the author's pointless aversion to static websites strange. No, you often really don't need to have a database, relational or not, to just do a website.
I've seen so many sites dutifully set up with CMS backends and databases that only ever get updated by one person, and which only actually get updated once in a blue moon.
ETA: I mean, damn, how many people first got started just putting up or editing some static web pages, back in the 1990s and even 2000s?
- larkeith 8y agoMy understanding was that the author isn't against static websites in general, but rather is against kludging together a functional equivalent to a CMS with backend scripts or third-party tools, when a RDB would be faster and simpler.
- pdimitar 8y agoTo expand on that, sqlite3 will most likely work best for 98% of all blogs out there. You hardly need a dedicated RDBMS service if 2-5 people put new articles few times a week.