Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by luxpir 3888 days ago
Haven't done any benchmarks myself, but I'd be keen to find out if a static site loaded up with JS design elements, a product store, comments and analytics code would load any quicker than a CMS with PHP caching, system caching and microcaching to handle bursts on a lightweight webserver such as Nginx.

The article is frustratingly biased in this regard. Static sites should just play to their strengths, otherwise you probably want a CMS that will act like a static site when it needs to.
1 comments
mariusz79 3888 days ago
It's not even about performance as it is about security. Imagine having to install only basic web server, with no database server and X language interpreter.No need to worry about sql injection and such. And you get performance boost for free.
link
luxpir 3888 days ago
Accepted that SQL security is pretty optimal with statics. How about security of your data when buying through 3rd party JS stores, commenting through 3rd party add-ons, being tracked by 3rd party snippets, etc.

Hard to deny that the additional functionality most people end up wanting beyond a simple online journal brings additional security risks, whatever the framework.

link