I don't agree with this at all. First off, he mentions Wordpress which is more of a blogging engine than a general CMS. Sure, if you have a blog then a static

I don't agree with this at all. First off, he mentions Wordpress which is more of a blogging engine than a general CMS. Sure, if you have a blog then a static site generator is fine, but not all bloggers want to deal with static site generators. Wordpress isn't going anywhere. "This means putting the site content in a database, then generate a page from a SQL query. Then as we realize that it's too slow to display, a cache is used that creates for each page a HTML file locally." The problem isn't that queries are slow, it's that developers use too many queries when piecing their sites together in the CMS. I don't deal with the OS / scaling side in my day job, but I imagine that static files don't always give you the best performance. Loading static files still hits the disk. A better option is probably to load the content from memory based storage / caching. I have built a lot of client sites, and the blog is usually just one small part of the site. Static site generators wouldn't work for most of the sites I build.