[gexla]

> A php based platform has a lot of negatives for scalability

This is an outdated view of how websites are developed today.

> Using a cms to generate static content is much more simple, scalable and cheaper.

If the market agreed with you, then this would be the dominant method for creating websites today. You aren't smarter than the market.

Maybe you aren't looking at the right variables which go into your calculation for "more simple, scalable and cheaper."

[lwhi]

Static generation is common approach, and has gained a lot of popularity in recent years.

[gexla]

Sure, I said dominant, not common.

I don't know how representative these results are, but it's a clue.

https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/WordPress

I don't now if there are numbers for static sites on there, but my guess is that those numbers don't come close to Wordpress, especially for the top million sites.

[lwhi]

Many CMSs are used to produce static sites; WordPress included.

The investment in tech like Gatsby, goes a long way to showing how the market does support this.

Market dominance, won't describe the trends a market is moving towards.

[gexla]

> Many CMSs are used to produce static sites; WordPress included.

So, which is it? Don't use Wordpress because it's PHP based and doesn't scale? Or Wordpress headless is okay because the front-end is static?

Static sites are the future, not Wordpress? Or Wordpress is still going to be a part of the headless market because the CMS supports that functionality?

You're confusing me.

[lwhi]

You were speaking as an authority, saying something I don't consider to be true.

I just wanted to correct you.