4 ms·
> but it seems like you still need a backend Of course. It's just managed by someone else and you often are paying per usage. And you'll find yourself needing
by meritt 7y ago
> but it seems like you still need a backend
Of course. It's just managed by someone else and you often are paying per usage. And you'll find yourself needing to wrangle numerous serverless platforms to actually build out relevant business logic if you want to do something meaningful, one third-party microservice at a time.
> Also, because it's just a static site, there's no backend or database, so you get better security.
It's not as trendy to think of it this way, but "static sites" are just caches with manual invalidation.
- mpoteat 7y agoIt might be more expensive in the long run, but it's an operational expense rather than a capital expense, which I would argue most software projects are.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoThey are only if you make them that way.
- dgb23 7y agoYou typically hook up changes in your data with static site rebuilds. Thinking of it as a cache has some merit, but it is more exciting to think of it as a event driven system as a whole, where instead of triggering a render on demand (user wants to look at something) you trigger it when a change happens. This pattern reduces the need for ad hoc caching and eliminates some accidental complexity as well because it reduces the coupling of management and representation.