[cparedes]

Er, sure it does:

* No web UI. This may be a blocker for business folks who want to update a blog. This is a blocker for folks who are using devices like iPad's to update blogs (which is a huge reason why I moved away from things like Octopress and moved toward things like Ghost or Wordpress.) This may be a blocker for folks who don't always have the tools on whatever machine they're using at the time in order to generate the site.

* No imposed structure. It's easier to impose a web UI form that locks folks into certain workflows than it is to just give them a git repository with all sorts of stuff strung about, with no apparent structure other than the FS structure.

[sanderjd]

Whoops, I wasn't clear - I mean that using a static site generator has no downsides relative to writing HTML/CSS directly. Your downsides are both relative to using more tooling.

In terms of those downsides, I agree with you for larger sites, but not for the kind of really small sites the OP was talking about.

[jawr]

Surely that's not a static site? I think the author was trying to say that people rely to heavily on tools to achieve simple goals; using a tool or framework for your own amusement can sway you away from the actual goal, in his case making a static website for an animal shelter.

[trentmb]

You can still have a web UI and produce a static website.

I've written blogging software that did just that. Every time the author edited/added something in the web UI (which saved to a db), it just re-'compiled' the particular pages.