> "I've managed to convert all my old dynamic sites to be statically generated, without really compromising on bells and whistles." In your linked article you

> "I've managed to convert all my old dynamic sites to be statically generated, without really compromising on bells and whistles." In your linked article you say: "Anyway, site search is only a nice-to-have...and folks can just use Google with the site: operator instead" To me that sounds like a compromise. I'm out of my depth talking about SSG-powered sites because I've never developed them. My area is frontend design-dev, without the engineering stripes or desire for overly complicated builds. That's why PHP and the traditional dynamic sites work for me. PHP, javascript, templates and a good reliable CMS allows me - the non-engineer, to do really interesting things such as site search with lots of added unique tricks to make users happy when they search for things. Beyond my needs, the non-technical people I build sites for need to manage the content easily. That's where I scratch my head with the SSG offerings in that regard. Where the CMS is often the lowest priority, with bizarre suggestions and workarounds to fill the CMS void. For complex content-heavy sites with lots of products, forms, landing pages and categories, a good CMS is really important... and a general architecture that isn't scattered around big tech services IMHO.