3 ms·

Server-side is no panacea. I starting paying attention recently, and WordPress-based sites frequently take well over a second to return the HTML for pages that

Server-side is no panacea. I starting paying attention recently, and WordPress-based sites frequently take well over a second to return the HTML for pages that are essentially static—and that's considered acceptably fast by many people running WP-based sites. Slow WP sites are even worse.

user5994461 6y ago
Wordpress is not static at all. It support commenting and loads comments by default, it shows related articles dynamically depending on categories and views, it displays different content to different viistors, resize and compress pictures on the fly, etc... and a thousand more things if you are a logged in user, it really is dynamic. It's actually pretty good considering what it does (if you don't setup a ton of plugins and no ads). There can be 50 requests per page but that's because of all the pictures and thumbnails. The page can render and be interactive almost immediately, pictures load later.
bob1029 6y ago
Everything can be done poorly. The problem with wordpress is it allows a plethora of plugins and hooks that allow for lego-style webapp construction. This is not going to result in cohesive, performant experiences. If you purpose build a server-side application to replace the functionality of any specific wordpress site in something like C#/Go/Rust, you will probably find that it performs substantially better in every way. This is more of a testament to the value of custom software vs low/no-code software than it is to the deficits or benefits of any specific architectural ideology.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Semiapies 6y ago
  "If you purpose build a server-side application to replace the functionality of any specific wordpress site in something like C#/Go/Rust, you will probably find that it performs substantially better in every way." You'd find the exact same thing for a Python or Node site, too.
bdcravens 6y ago
When I consider the "server-side" argument, I think of it in apples-to-apples comparison: custom code that is either server-side or client-side rendered. Wordpress on the other hand is a packaged application, typically used with other packaged plugins and themes. Moreover, many Wordpress sites are run on anemic shared hosting. Custom applications can as well, but I feel that's far less likely.
- Semiapies 6y ago
  "I think of it in apples-to-apples comparison" That's a restriction in your mind that has nothing to do with the topic. "Moreover, many Wordpress sites are run on anemic shared hosting." The same hosting that would be perfectly fine for a static site.
john-shaffer 6y ago
If you use a plugin like WP2Static to render actual static pages, you get far better performance. If you have a well-designed theme that, e.g., doesn't have render-blocking JS, you should have seemingly instant load times.
- Semiapies 6y ago
  Your first point may be true, but it completely ignores the reality of a vast number of WordPress sites that don't use a plugin to generate a separate, static, site. As to your second point, what do you imagine that "well-designed theme[s]" have to do with sites taking well over a second to start returning HTML?
  - john-shaffer 6y ago
    > Your first point may be true, but it completely ignores the reality of a vast number of WordPress sites that don't use a plugin to generate a separate, static, site. For the record, I would never run WordPress as non-static unless I had no other option. I'm not defending WordPress in any way. I just didn't see the need to mention its flaws because the parent comment already had. I would personally prefer not to use WordPress at all, but it is the de facto standard for marketing websites, and marketers don't know or care about the performance and security nightmare that is standard WordPress. Since that is the reality, I felt that it was helpful to let people know how to deal with it constructively instead of just deploying insecure, slow websites. > As to your second point, what do you imagine that "well-designed theme[s]" have to do with sites taking well over a second to start returning HTML? That was stated in the context of static websites. If you're running non-static WP, you're just fucked.
recursivecaveat 6y ago
I mean I just opened a Twitter profile and counted 10 full seconds before the actual tweets loaded. 1-2 seconds is pretty blazing by comparison. How much faster do you need to be than the most popular social media site?
- Semiapies 6y ago
  Attitudes like this are why websites load slowly.

user5994461 6y ago

Wordpress is not static at all. It support commenting and loads comments by default, it shows related articles dynamically depending on categories and views, it displays different content to different viistors, resize and compress pictures on the fly, etc... and a thousand more things if you are a logged in user, it really is dynamic. It's actually pretty good considering what it does (if you don't setup a ton of plugins and no ads). There can be 50 requests per page but that's because of all the pictures and thumbnails. The page can render and be interactive almost immediately, pictures load later.

bob1029 6y ago

Everything can be done poorly. The problem with wordpress is it allows a plethora of plugins and hooks that allow for lego-style webapp construction. This is not going to result in cohesive, performant experiences. If you purpose build a server-side application to replace the functionality of any specific wordpress site in something like C#/Go/Rust, you will probably find that it performs substantially better in every way. This is more of a testament to the value of custom software vs low/no-code software than it is to the deficits or benefits of any specific architectural ideology.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Semiapies 6y ago
"If you purpose build a server-side application to replace the functionality of any specific wordpress site in something like C#/Go/Rust, you will probably find that it performs substantially better in every way." You'd find the exact same thing for a Python or Node site, too.

bdcravens 6y ago

When I consider the "server-side" argument, I think of it in apples-to-apples comparison: custom code that is either server-side or client-side rendered. Wordpress on the other hand is a packaged application, typically used with other packaged plugins and themes. Moreover, many Wordpress sites are run on anemic shared hosting. Custom applications can as well, but I feel that's far less likely.

Semiapies 6y ago
"I think of it in apples-to-apples comparison" That's a restriction in your mind that has nothing to do with the topic. "Moreover, many Wordpress sites are run on anemic shared hosting." The same hosting that would be perfectly fine for a static site.

john-shaffer 6y ago

If you use a plugin like WP2Static to render actual static pages, you get far better performance. If you have a well-designed theme that, e.g., doesn't have render-blocking JS, you should have seemingly instant load times.

Semiapies 6y ago
Your first point may be true, but it completely ignores the reality of a vast number of WordPress sites that don't use a plugin to generate a separate, static, site. As to your second point, what do you imagine that "well-designed theme[s]" have to do with sites taking well over a second to start returning HTML?
- john-shaffer 6y ago
  > Your first point may be true, but it completely ignores the reality of a vast number of WordPress sites that don't use a plugin to generate a separate, static, site. For the record, I would never run WordPress as non-static unless I had no other option. I'm not defending WordPress in any way. I just didn't see the need to mention its flaws because the parent comment already had. I would personally prefer not to use WordPress at all, but it is the de facto standard for marketing websites, and marketers don't know or care about the performance and security nightmare that is standard WordPress. Since that is the reality, I felt that it was helpful to let people know how to deal with it constructively instead of just deploying insecure, slow websites. > As to your second point, what do you imagine that "well-designed theme[s]" have to do with sites taking well over a second to start returning HTML? That was stated in the context of static websites. If you're running non-static WP, you're just fucked.

recursivecaveat 6y ago

I mean I just opened a Twitter profile and counted 10 full seconds before the actual tweets loaded. 1-2 seconds is pretty blazing by comparison. How much faster do you need to be than the most popular social media site?

Semiapies 6y ago
Attitudes like this are why websites load slowly.