Hydration vs Static Site Generation

Developers should learn hydration to optimize web applications for better user experience, particularly in frameworks like React, Vue, or Angular that support server-side rendering (SSR) meets developers should use ssg for content-heavy sites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing pages where content changes infrequently, as it offers superior performance, security (no server-side vulnerabilities), and low hosting costs. Here's our take.

Hydration

Nice Pick

Developers should learn hydration to optimize web applications for better user experience, particularly in frameworks like React, Vue, or Angular that support server-side rendering (SSR)

Pros

• It's essential for building fast-loading, SEO-friendly SPAs where initial content is critical, such as e-commerce sites or content-heavy platforms
• Related to: server-side-rendering, client-side-rendering

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Static Site Generation

Developers should use SSG for content-heavy sites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing pages where content changes infrequently, as it offers superior performance, security (no server-side vulnerabilities), and low hosting costs

Pros

• It's ideal for projects requiring SEO optimization, global scalability via CDNs, and simplified deployment workflows, especially when combined with modern frameworks like Next
• Related to: next-js, gatsby

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Hydration is a concept while Static Site Generation is a methodology. We picked Hydration based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Hydration wins

Based on overall popularity. Hydration is more widely used, but Static Site Generation excels in its own space.