[g_delgado14]

> The static site approach still isn't that well known

Static sites predate web apps. In fact, the first websites were purely static.

> reduced complexity

you're telling me webpack + react + node_module hell + graphql reduces complexity?

[azangru]

>> Right now, I try to use static sites wherever I can because of their reduced complexity.

> you're telling me webpack + react + node_module hell + graphql reduces complexity?

You are using the word _complexity_ in a different sense. The complexity you are talking about is the complexity of developing and building web pages. However, once they are built they are simple static files that can be served from anywhere. As opposed to the complexity mentioned in the parent post, which is the complexity of running a typical web application that includes a backend server and likely a database. Even such plain and commonplace technology as a Wordpress installation has a higher complexity of running than a Gatsby-based site.

[specialp]

People tend to find things that they have done for a long time less complicated than something new despite it actually being quite complicated. I always ask people when they are debating stuff like this to think about how they would explain it to someone who knew next to nothing about either approaches.

JAM stack development puts the complexity on the build side but pays it back on the operational aspect and performance. I have been a Ruby developer for over 10 years and I will say that React/GraphQL is indeed much easier than a full blown Rails app both operationally and development wise. Heroku is a black box that runs Rails and provides databases/load balancers to back it. Here you are pushing your generated pages to a CDN, and using them to host your GraphQL endpoints.