[pistle]

... Next Big Thing For Minimally Dynamic Sites

If your content doesn't change frequently and/or the costs of regenerating the static content is minimized for you, great.

At what point do we see static sites take a fair share of the top-X-trafficked sites? Top 100? 1000? 1,000,000?

This is probably great for a small corp's info site... but then the client asks for a contact form or members/admin secured area, and there we go down the rabbit hole again.

[wtbob]

> At what point do we see static sites take a fair share of the top-X-trafficked sites? Top 100? 1000? 1,000,000?

Honestly, most media sites could (and probably should) be static. Think of Time, or Cracked, or CNN: a lot of content, which could be regenerated once and viewed by millions of people per regeneration. Comments could be grafted in with JavaScript (which would suit me just fine, since I don't read such sites for the comments anyway).

> This is probably great for a small corp's info site... but then the client asks for a contact form or members/admin secured area, and there we go down the rabbit hole again.

It's not an all-or-nothing thing; a web server can serve both static and dynamic content, after all.

[oneeyedpigeon]

I tend to think of it in terms of ratio. Of course, very few sites are 100% static, but a site with thousands of static pages and a contact form that posts to a php script is still a 'static site' in my book. You could also define it on a request method basis, since it doesn't make sense to POST to a plain html file.

[bobfunk]

At netlify we're seeing more and more large projects being built with this approach.

Some have more than 10k pages, search functionality, internationalization and large content teams behind them. Expect some interesting case studies :)