[em-bee]

Static sites are nice from a deployment perspective, but CMS's make a lot of things easier than static site generators do. Seems like there's room to have the best of both worlds

thank you, that was my experience too.

as a web developer, my primary concern is the users who provide content for a site (including myself).

i have only actively worked with hugo myself and i was disappointed by its complexity.

there are only a few situations where a static site generator is helpful.

one is a distributed team of teach-savy volunteers. here it means that i can submit occasional changes to a site as a patch.

however, the group of people that will benefit from this is limited. and the benefit does not come from the fact that the site is made with an SSG but that the content is stored in a text based revision control system. the friction in such a situation is access control and not deployment. one could easily imagine a dynamic site that pulls its contents from a text based source and still get the same benefits.