I'm planning to write a little guide on how you can host a static site effectively, but it got me thinking that first I might wanna write about WHY you'd want to use a static site in the first place. Here goes!
SURE it is, half the internet runs on it, but that doesn't mean it's the best option for a lot of blogging use-cases. A few reasons I think that WordPress is usually overkill for blogging:
So, WordPress is definitely easier to get setup. But as I just explained, it's definitely not easier to operate. Also, is it better for your readers? They're likely far more interested in a pleasant and fast reading experience than waiting for your slow-as-hell blog to load. If you're interested in having happy readers who want to come back, then you really want to care about the experience they're having on your blog.
This is one reason I think static sites are better for readers. But I also think they're better for writers.
I mean what is blogging all about? As I see it, it's writing content (probably quite a lot of it relatively often) for easy consumption by a large number of people.
Writing your words in a WYSIWYG editor in your web-browser is easy to get started with, but it often becomes frustrating in no time at all, especially if you're doing a lot of it. Think about some of the things that anyone who has written web-content via their browser has had to suffer through:
These are some of the problems that markdown-based static-sites solve. You can write it with a phone app, an app on your laptop or just with a plain text editor on your machine. It's simple, it's clear, it's offline. And, as the normal approach is to stick your static-site content in a version-control system like Git, then it's also rock-solidly backed up. You're not going to lose it to some weird hosting error that happened one sunday night because the provider you chose for cheapness (because performance issues remember) decided losing your database wasn't a big deal when they updated something.
After moving to a MarkDown-based writing setup a while back, I find it a million times more writer-friendly than CMS WYSIWYGs. And the upside of this is that a good writing experience is likely to lead to you writing more. Which means more blog content. Can't be bad right?
However, if you're aiming for something like a blog with quite a bit of content, then it's going to start getting very tedious very quickly. You need to edit all your content in HTML for a start. This'll make it hard to migrate in the future as well as being far more laborious than normal text or markdown. You're also going to need to think of something like server-side includes to be able to reuse bits of HTML like headers, footers, sidebars etc. And every time you add a new post you need to remember all the places it needs to go: index page, any sort of blog-roll, category pages, sitemaps, and the list goes on.
When you think about it, the ball-ache involved is going to get you quickly looking into how you can automate all these annoyances. This automation is exactly what static-site generators are for. Problem solved :D
* This doesn't mean that ALL static sites are better than ALL WordPress sites, or even that a WordPress site can't be configured to be almost as performant as a static-site alternative. I'm just pointing out the average output of both these two tools, and it's generally a LOT easier to get instant performance out of a static site than it is a WordPress one.