# Re: Static web site generators

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-static-web-site-generators/162278>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [March 8, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-static-web-site-generators/162278 "2009-03-08T01:28:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bodikp](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@bodikp](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/bodikp)\
**Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-static-web-site-generators/162278/1 "2009-03-08T01:28:47Z")

</div>

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 removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bodikp](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@bodikp](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/bodikp)\
**Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-static-web-site-generators/162278/2 "2009-03-08T04:28:51Z")

</div>

On Mar 7, 7:26 pm, Peter B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bodikp](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@bodikp](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/bodikp)\
**Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-static-web-site-generators/162278/3 "2009-03-08T04:35:52Z")

</div>

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).