[Dedime]

TBH I find it completely wild that someone prefers PHP to a statically generated site (Assuming you can get away with statically-generated). Just serving static files is way way way faster than running a backend, not to mention all of the process efficiencies you get by not having to manage servers etc.

When I update my blog (statically-generated), I add an .md file containing the blog post, commit it to git, and push it to a git repo. A quick CI/CD build fires off which generates the HTML (~1 bash command in a docker container) and pushes the static files to a file server. Easy!

[rchaud]

I guess it depends on how a person started off with web dev. I have always made personal web pages directly inside an .html or .php site. Instead of "##", I used <h2></h2> and so on. I don't code for a living so my practices will seem pretty archaic because there's no git, no Webpack or script minification/Gzip involved.

I remember starting an Android course ~9 years ago and then giving up within the first hour because I could not configure the Eclipse environment properly. I think the same would have been true of web dev if I had to set up a Docker container just to get to "Hello World".

HTML has that "just works" quality that kept me interested in learning.

[bachmeier]

If you want to work with html files, you can always add a CDN link to something like Marked: https://marked.js.org/ You can enter the text of your post in markdown but it will be rendered as html.

[detaro]

Running PHP doesn't necessarily mean "managing servers", that's what hosting providers are for. And static sites have their own limitations, so it's not that surprising that people prefer the flexibility.

[ipaddr]

Having php available opens many doors if you wanted to add something non-static even something small.

Not running a backend can be limiting and force external services for simple tasks.

[spaniard89277]

I have picoCMS (php).

I just open my FTP, drop a markdown file, and that's it. No repos, no CI/CD, no nothing.