Micro.blog

colinwalker
colinwalker
If you're reading this then the update to WordPress 5.4 was successful. Updates are always a little nerve-wracking when so much of your site is hand coded and held together with chewing gum and sticky tape. You're never entirely sure that it's going to load up or work properly afterward... colinwalker.blog
colinwalker
colinwalker

@AlanRalph I have several plugins (a number of which we written by myself to support the way I want to blog) but nothing that is an administrative burden or excessively changes the platform and adds extra complexity. Even so, it sometimes still seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

colinwalker
colinwalker

@AlanRalph Agreed on that point about moving the complexity. Additionally, my experience with Jekyll and Hugo indicates that I would loose more (extensibility) than I would gain (speed). I have 15 years worth of blogging in nearly 7000 posts. How would I move those 7000 posts to a static site generator?

In reply to
jack
jack

@colinwalker @AlanRalph One benefit of static sites is speed, yes. That part is free (no caching plugins, etc). For me the other draw is permanence and stability. The complexity moves local, but that also means the complexity is removed from the published site. This improves security, speed, hosting requirements, portability, and permanence for the site people are actually using. If something breaks, it happens on my machine and no one notices. I can leave a static site sit on a server somewhere indefinitely, without too much concern about breakage or vulnerabilities. Having git history of content is pretty great too. I've moved 3000 or 4000 posts from my Wordpress site to Hugo (several times :)) without too much grief. Hugo renders updates in under 3 seconds. The downside is the publishing workflow and customizations become...different. :). The benefits aren't worth the tradeoffs for many, but they're there.