Three myths about static site generation

The version of this that works is simpler than the version most people imagine. A few things about static site generation that get repeated more often than they get checked.

The question is rarely whether something can be built, but what it costs to keep running afterwards. It is the sort of thing that looks like polish right up until it costs you an enquiry.

“It only matters for big sites”

Static files are the fastest and cheapest thing to serve. The cost of getting this wrong is rarely visible on the day it happens. Anything you cannot measure here, you are deciding by taste, which is fine as long as everyone knows it.

“We can deal with it after launch”

Sometimes true, usually expensive. The cost of getting this wrong is rarely visible on the day it happens.

“Our platform handles it”

Rebuilds can be automated on every content change. Where this goes wrong is almost never a lack of knowledge. It rarely shows up as a line item, which is exactly why it slips.

What this looks like day to day

Code gets read far more often than it gets written, and usually by someone with less context than the author had. Three things worth confirming about static site generation before you move on:

• Someone can say what the current setup is without going to look
• No server means dramatically less to attack or patch — and you know whether that is true here
• There is a way to tell whether the last change to this helped

Worth checking on your own setup before it becomes someone else's problem to fix.