[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Static web site generators

Peter Booth

3/8/2009 12:27:00 AM

I'm a bit of an obsessive about website performance. I recently
ditched a domain registrar because the admin tools all had five to ten
second delays on each page.

Static generators can stop us having to waste chunks of our life
waiting on piss-poor dynamic web apps. Many dynamic sites really could
be static. Most dynamic sites are untuned (thus slow). What would you
think of a store that always had a ten minute checkout line? This is
really no different. If you deploy a slow website you are saying to
your users "your time isn't important to me"

So the thought of choosing a dynamic site over static seems bizarre to
me.

Peter Booth
(917) 445 5663 peter_booth@mac.com

On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:27 PM, trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 7, 5:18 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After Googling a bit, it appears that nanoc, webby & webgen seem to
>> be
>> the prominent Ruby candidates for tools to generate static web sites.
>>
>> Any recommendations/warnings from folks who have used any of them?
>
> There certainly nothing wrong with static site generation --in some
> ways static sites are better. And those are all good tools and there
> are others as well. But, I always find myself moving to a dynamic site
> in the end. It's just a hell of a lot more convenient.
>
> I would be cool if some of these static site generators had a cache
> and generate on demand mode.
>
> T.
>
2 Answers

Trans

3/8/2009 3:25:00 AM

0



On Mar 7, 7:26=A0pm, Peter Booth <pbo...@nocoincidences.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit of an obsessive about website performance. I recently =A0
> ditched a domain registrar because the admin tools all had five to ten =
=A0
> second delays on each page.
>
> Static generators can stop us having to waste chunks of our life =A0
> waiting on piss-poor dynamic web apps. Many dynamic sites really could =
=A0
> be static. Most dynamic sites are untuned (thus slow). What would you =A0
> think of a store that always had a ten minute checkout line? This is =A0
> really no different. If you deploy a slow website you are saying to =A0
> your users "your time isn't important to me"
>
> So the thought of choosing a dynamic site over static seems bizarre to =
=A0
> me.

I have never had a page I've created take more then a fraction of a
second to generate. I'd ditch a host that made me wait five to ten
seconds too.

T.

Tim Greer

3/8/2009 3:33:00 AM

0

trans wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 7, 7:26 pm, Peter Booth <pbo...@nocoincidences.com> wrote:
>> I'm a bit of an obsessive about website performance. I recently
>> ditched a domain registrar because the admin tools all had five to
>> ten second delays on each page.
>>
>> Static generators can stop us having to waste chunks of our life
>> waiting on piss-poor dynamic web apps. Many dynamic sites really
>> could be static. Most dynamic sites are untuned (thus slow). What
>> would you think of a store that always had a ten minute checkout
>> line? This is really no different. If you deploy a slow website you
>> are saying to your users "your time isn't important to me"
>>
>> So the thought of choosing a dynamic site over static seems bizarre
>> to me.
>
> I have never had a page I've created take more then a fraction of a
> second to generate. I'd ditch a host that made me wait five to ten
> seconds too.
>
> T.

Indeed, it could be the server used, host used (or how the server is
configured), the code, the connection, or anything, so while static is
going to require less processing than running code when you don't need
to, it's often about the other variables playing a role (provided the
code is efficient itself). If the problem truly lies with the host and
their system and/or network, then we'd all agree to move on. I've seen
a lot of people move from host to host in my time, where they hope one
host's server will run badly designed code when their last one wasn't
fast enough, only to find out it was their code or its design (though
that's certainly not always the case). Still, I think anyone would
agree that what should or can be static, is best left static (though
sometimes tradeoffs are acceptable, so it all depends and on too many
variables to say the same from one situation to the next in any
generalized term).
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!