the ask for no external dependencies means you need to do one of two things. 1. choose a language with a LOT of "batteries included" (you don't want to have to

the ask for no external dependencies means you need to do one of two things. 1. choose a language with a LOT of "batteries included" (you don't want to have to write HTTP connection protocol handling from scratch). 2. re-create (or copy in) a ton of external code, which is still really "external dependencies" you've just copied them in to your code so you don't have to worry about them disappearing. Either way you'll be writing a boatload of stuff from scratch that already exists. Regardless of which option you've chosen "easy" is no longer on the table. You want easy, you use the code other people have written to simplify things. That's why Rails, and its clones dominate web-dev. They have already done all the hard bits so that what's left is the "easy" bits and the proprietary bits. > Should be simple and resilient, can last for a long time. define "a long time" Are we talking decades? C+ is probably the way to go. There's a ton of it in just about every industry so it's guaranteed to keep being supported for decades. Alternately, choose a language that's existed for a long time and still seems to be going strong like Smalltalk. As a benefit, Smalltalk's got a LOT of "batteries included". > The closest I can think of is a static site generator with some kind of self-hosted database but I'm not aware of any. that's an external dependency and most all of them depend on packages / libraries so it's an external dependency with external dependencies. also, having a self-hosted database defeats the point of a "static" site generator. If it's static you don't need a db, unless you're storing meta-data that helps you generate the static files. That's why you're not finding any.