[open-source-ux]

Static Site Generators (SSG) are not new. The SSG blog software Moveable Type launched in 2001 (written in Perl) and preceded WordPress. It featured a friendly browser-based editing, and a publishing experience suitable for all users.

This article omits an important aspect of popular SSGs and the 'Jamstack': they are not easy-to-install or easy to use by non-technical users.

Some of the most popular SSGs are surprisingly complex despite claims to the contrary. (A simple contact form is impossible in many SSGs without embedding third-party services.)

Also, the love of Markdown is not shared by anyone who isn't a developer. Step outside of basic Markdown and it becomes unpleasant to use and cumbersome. It's even harder for non-technical users - try adding a table using Markdown.

Outside of developer circles, SSGs have had neglible impact on non-technical users.

[camillomiller]

I would also point out that by means of heavy caching Wordpress can solve all the performance issues indicated by the author as the main advantage of SSGs. In my opinion opposing Wordpress and dynamic CMSs to SSGs is the wrong way to frame the topic. They have different applications, especially if you’re doing client work.

[zestyrx]

> SSGs have had neglible impact on non-technical users.

I don't think so. Publishers are leaning heavily into SSG to improve SEO: https://zestyrx.com/blog/nextjs-ssg