4 ms·
True, but given how easy and prevenant PHP is on hosting sites, why not use a very small amount, just one or two php pages, each 200 lines or less, and everythi
by deckiedan 13y ago
True, but given how easy and prevenant PHP is on hosting sites, why not use a very small amount, just one or two php pages, each 200 lines or less, and everything else static?
Probably CGI would be better, mind you, keep everything static except what is obviously not.
- StavrosK 13y agoBecause the line one draws is "no server-side code at all". If you use a bit of code for that, you might as well use a bit for this, and for the other thing, and soon it's a CMS. Besides, the hosts I want to deploy on don't have PHP (S3, stock nginx, Github pages).
- deckiedan 13y agoFair enough. I switched our team's website to a completely static site a few years ago, they were using joomla (vomit) for essentially a broucher site that changed once a quarter. I wonder if there would be a place for a 'json search as a service' thing - where you could upload your static content (as markdown, rst, txt, whatever) and then use their servers for full text queries which return a json list of matching page URLs and titles...
- stormbrew 13y agoCGI is pretty much never better.
- rakoo 13y agoBecause "no server-side code" means "I can host it completely on a CDN", which pretty much solves the scalability needs. If you need to scale those few lines of php or whatever language, this is gonna be much more difficult. Plus, you can host it on different platforms such as freenet, gnunet, and have the simplest backup ever (`cp` is enough for having a functioning version on any OS of any kind).