I'm a bit of an obsessive about website performance. I recently ditched a domain registrar because the admin tools all had five to ten second delays on each page. Static generators can stop us having to waste chunks of our life waiting on piss-poor dynamic web apps. Many dynamic sites really could be static. Most dynamic sites are untuned (thus slow). What would you think of a store that always had a ten minute checkout line? This is really no different. If you deploy a slow website you are saying to your users "your time isn't important to me" So the thought of choosing a dynamic site over static seems bizarre to me. Peter B. (917) 445 5663 email@example.com
on 2009-03-08 02:28
on 2009-03-08 05:28
On Mar 7, 7:26 pm, Peter B. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > So the thought of choosing a dynamic site over static seems bizarre to > me. I have never had a page I've created take more then a fraction of a second to generate. I'd ditch a host that made me wait five to ten seconds too. T.
on 2009-03-08 05:35
trans wrote: >> would you think of a store that always had a ten minute checkout > T. Indeed, it could be the server used, host used (or how the server is configured), the code, the connection, or anything, so while static is going to require less processing than running code when you don't need to, it's often about the other variables playing a role (provided the code is efficient itself). If the problem truly lies with the host and their system and/or network, then we'd all agree to move on. I've seen a lot of people move from host to host in my time, where they hope one host's server will run badly designed code when their last one wasn't fast enough, only to find out it was their code or its design (though that's certainly not always the case). Still, I think anyone would agree that what should or can be static, is best left static (though sometimes tradeoffs are acceptable, so it all depends and on too many variables to say the same from one situation to the next in any generalized term).