Twitter Email
silvercircle No addendum
A Jekyll test site with no particular purpose.

Blogging with a static site generator

Author: alex
Title: Blogging With Jekyll
Language: en-US
Created: 16:30 on Tuesday, 22. August 2017
Modified: 05:12 on Monday, 28. August 2017

The big question is: WHY? Why should someone give up all the innovations of the last 20 years or so that made the Web a dynamic, lively and social place and go back to publishing static HTML pages something we did 25 years ago? Doesn’t sound very logical, nor does it seem to make any sense, does it?

Tags: firstJekyll
Page layout: no_sidebar
Last modified:
2044 Words
16:30 | by alex in Jekyll
Reading time: approx. 8 minute(s).

The big question is: WHY? Why should someone give up all the innovations of the last 20 years or so that made the Web a dynamic, lively and social place and go back to publishing static HTML pages

  • something we did 25 years ago? Doesn’t sound very logical, nor does it seem to make any sense, does it?

A not so short history lesson

Back, in the 90’s, when the web was still young, it was a very static place. Most pages were simple HTML documents with the rare image added every now and then. CSS didn’t exist, markup was added in form of attributes to HTML tags, scripts were a rare thing, even in the late 90’s, because JavaScript was, in its early years, a troubled technology suffering from many problems. The big thing, that entered the game in the second half of the 90’s to make the web more dynamic was actually Java, not JavaScript. Applets were the big deal back then.

Today, we know it was a flawed technology that failed. Replaced - for some time - by other flawed technologies, namely Flash and later Silverlight. The latter never gained greater acceptance, while the former got its years of glory and must be given credit for some progress that wouldn’t have been possible without Flash. For many years, Flash was the only way to play videos embedded in a browser and the technology that made sites like YouTube possible in the first places.

While Java, Flash and Silverlight were client sided things, at about the same time server sided scripting started to take off while Java applets tried to conquer the web and ultimately failed. CGI scripts, the very basic form of server sided dynamic content creation, had existed for a while, but their usefulness was limited and even back then, they were a security and performance nightmare for every webmaster. PERL was the language of choice for early CGI development in the 90’s, but Perl never was a very approachable language - a powerful one in the right hands for sure, but also a messy one. Other options to write CGI scripts were C and obviously the omnipresent shell script dialect of choice.

Everything changed in 1995 though, when a Canadian programmer released a software to simplify form driven web applications and called it Personal Home Page tools - PHP was born. Initially, it was not planned to create a completely new and independent programming language, but that is exactly what happened and the rest is history. Despite its flaws and ugliness (a result of a merely chaotic and organic development process without a clear design until about PHP version 4 many years later), PHP took the Web by surprise and quickly became the most important tool for creating dynamic web content.

The fact that MySQL - a free and open source RDBMS - appeared at about the same time did help a lot of course, because a database is almost mandatory for web applications that build content dynamically.

Looking back into the evolution of the dynamic web, it’s quite interesting to see how that evolution iterated over a couple of steps with the big goal always being the same: more dynamic, less static content. The final iteration (or at least, the most recent step we currently know) manifested itself in two things:

  • The evolution of JavaScript from a slow, interpreted, troubled and insecure programming language into a powerful first class language that is nowadays one of the most popular languages globally, offers great performance and has left behind most of its inherent troubles that plagued it in its early days.

  • The evolution of HTML from a very limited markup language that was cumbersome to use into a collection of related tools that allow to build complex documents with advanced layouts and embedded multimedia content - all without any third party plugins. HTML5 can do simple animations, vector graphics, can embed images and videos, and can, together with JavaScript, build attractive and easy-to-use user interfaces. Sites like Google Docs and desktop applications built with the very same web technologies like Visual Studio Code showcase what these technologies can really do.

These two steps made all other innovations like Flash, Silverlight and Java basically obsolete. With HTML5 and JavaScript, it is now possible to build a dynamic experience that does not rely on any third party software. High quality implementations of these technologies are part of all modern browsers, available on a wide range of different devices. Be it desktop computer, portable notebook, tablet, smartphone or even a gaming console - these standardized web technologies work everywhere and the only thing you need is a modern browser, because it includes all that’s really needed.

But… aren’t static websites anti-social?

Well, in some ways they were considered anti-social before the Web 2.0 revolution with social media and dynamic sites took off many years ago. The main argument was that static web sites do not allow readers to interact with authors, but this was only half the truth. In fact, many authors and site publishers offered plenty of interaction but the methods were different in the pre-social networking era. E-mail was obviously the most popular method, but other ways did exist. Instant messaging was gaining popularity in the late 90’s and many publishers added their ICQ or MSN profiles to their sites. Others allowed users to interact in chat rooms or on IRC

It is more difficult to maintain a static site

Arguably, that is indeed true. Most modern CMS do not require authors to understand more than just basics about the technologies that drive them. There is little need to understand HTML or CSS, let alone more complex things like JavaScript or a template language. As an author, you write content the way you do it in a word processor. In fact, many CMS allow authors to write content in Microsoft Word and can accept the Word document format.

This is how a post 
can be written in Jekyll - with a simple text editor
This is how a post can be written in Jekyll - with a simple text editor
This is how a post can be written in Jekyll - with a simple text editor

In Jekyll, you write posts using the markdown language. While the basics of it are easy to learn, creating more advanced posts require either a site administrator who can help or more learning. Either way, it’s a bit more complex than taking an image and dragging it into your post, but it is possible and as you can see here on this site, the results don’t look different from pages that were created with a full grown CMS.

Authoring static sites doesn’t mean you have to forget all the cool things like pretty picture galleries or fancy “relative” and dynamic time stamps. These things are usually implemented on the client’s side via JavaScript and all you have to do as a site author is to include the scripts and CSS in your pages and format your content in a way that allows the scripts to find and transform it. Since Jekyll is fully template driven, it gives you all the necessary freedom to include almost any JavaScript feature you want.

In some way, it is also more flexible. Most CMS only allow subsets of HTML and/or CSS in content, while Jekyll allows basically everything (except scripts), but that flexibility comes with a price, as most things do. As an author, you have to adopt your workflow and leave the comfortable WYSIWY(P)G (the ‘P’ stands for probably) environment you may be used to. It’s not that difficult though and if you have any experience with Wiki authoring, then markdown won’t pose a big challenge as it’s remarkably similar.

Performance and security

Here we have the two most important advantages of using static pages publishing. First, delivering static HTML pages and their linked resources is the bread and butter for any web server software. On modern hardware, a HTTP server like nginx can satisfy ten-thousands of static page requests every second and the limiting factor will almost always be the available network bandwidth. With static pages, even a low end server can saturate 100MBit with ease. CPU and memory load are irrelevant when serving static pages, because you’ll hit the network and/or storage transfer limit way faster than you can fully load even a single core of a modern CPU.

So, the first advantage is that you save hosting fees, simply, because a low spec server hardware will certainly do it, as long as you have enough network capacity. Publishing with Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla or similar piece of software, much more powerful thus more expensive hardware will be needed for satisfying performance and stability requirements. Also, you need PHP and a database on the server - by today, both have become de-facto standard, but hardware that is powerful enough has not yet, particularly not in the low cost hosting business where hardware is often overloaded.

Security is the second big argument and might be even more important. While a miserably performing Wordpress site can be annoying, it won’t directly do any harm other than maybe pissing off some of your potential customers. A site that crashed under high load is a different thing though and may have potential to really hurt your business. But then, if your financial income depends on the availability of your website(s), you should look for decent hosting anyway. Even static pages won’t be reachable when the server is hopelessly overloaded or crashed.

One of the biggest threats are security holes in web applications. While the situation has improved a bit over the last couple of years, mainly because more and more developers understand how basic attack vectors like XSS and SQL injections work and how to fend off attacks against them, there are still countless vulnerable web applications in the wild. With static pages, however, the risk is almost completely eliminated, because the majority of attack vectors vanish with the absence of code execution and database interaction.

Revision control

Wiki authors probably know the deal. Every article is managed by some kind of revision control system. This has a number of advantages:

  • Transparent changes. The revision history can be used to see all changes made to the article.

  • Easy way to revert. Any change to an article, template, CSS or any other file can be undone with ease. Just revert to an earlier version.

There are cons, there must be, right?

Well, of course, there are. The total absence of dynamic site building abilities (with the exception of some client-sided Ajax/JavaScript tricks) implies a lot of downsides. Whether or not they are significant enough to work as a valid argument against using a static site generator is up to the site owner. The decision might not be an easy one, because the cons are counter weighted by quite some pros.

Lack of interaction

Without dynamic content, even simple features like a flat comment system is difficult to implement. Not impossible, but still difficult and no matter how well you do it, it will never be as feature-rich and powerful as a database driven forum or comment system. Third party solutions like Disqus can fill the gap and can be added to static sites, but it basically means you’re giving it out of your hands, which might not be what you want.

Without a database, however, even simple things like a full text search becomes difficult, but again, like in the above example with a comment system, 3rd party providers may come to rescue. It’s simple to add a customized google search box to your site, giving you all of Google’s knowledge on searching web pages for free (well, there be dragons ads, of course).