Traditional Web vs Static Site Generator

Developers should learn Traditional Web for building simple, SEO-friendly websites, content-heavy applications like blogs or news sites, and projects where server-side rendering is prioritized for performance or compatibility meets developers should use static site generators for content-heavy websites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing sites where content changes infrequently. Here's our take.

Traditional Web

Nice Pick

Developers should learn Traditional Web for building simple, SEO-friendly websites, content-heavy applications like blogs or news sites, and projects where server-side rendering is prioritized for performance or compatibility

Pros

• It's essential for understanding web fundamentals, maintaining legacy systems, and creating applications that work well on low-bandwidth connections or with browsers that have limited JavaScript support
• Related to: html, css

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Static Site Generator

Developers should use Static Site Generators for content-heavy websites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing sites where content changes infrequently

Pros

• They are ideal when performance, security, and low hosting costs are priorities, as static files reduce server load and vulnerabilities compared to dynamic server-rendered sites
• Related to: markdown, git

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

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

The Bottom Line

Traditional Web wins

Based on overall popularity. Traditional Web is more widely used, but Static Site Generator excels in its own space.