Static web – back to the roots?
It's an interesting piece, and lots of good reasons to "go static".<p>But. They're <i>developer</i> reasons.<p>What almost everyone who piles into this support of static stuff seems to completely ignore is the <i>audience</i> here.<p>Who do you think is editing your website? Amy the developer who has no problem committing stuff to Git or learning Markdown or Dave, who is a marketing manager and spends most of his life in Word writing press releases and social media posts?<p>The entire point of a WYSIWYG editor is that it doesn't require any developer experience.<p>If you genuinely think a corporate website can be run out of a Git workflow or a requirement to learn Markdown, you're basically in the wrong room. This is the whole "IT bottleneck" that content teams have been battling for years: it's back to the early 90's days of "yeh, we want to update our homepage but we need IT to do it for us".<p>Somewhere in the middle is the holy grail: performant sites that are also editor friendly.