Enterprise Software

Poll: How much static HTML do you use?

Justin James thinks that moving back to static HTML for more things would be a good idea for him. How much of your project do you leave as static HTML?

I have a personal website that I almost never update. I thought updates would be so easy if I used a CMS that I would do them all the time; it turned out that maintaining the CMS was such a hassle that I never touch the site. Looking back, I wish that I had just used a static HTML editor that had templating in it, like Microsoft Expression Web. In fact, I've been involved in a number of projects where it was the use of a complex system instead of static HTML that effectively wrecked the site.

I wonder how much of your project you leave as static HTML, and how much gets generated by a system, whether it be ASP.NET, PHP, some sort of CMS, etc. For me, I feel like moving back to static HTML for more things would actually be a good idea.

J.Ja

About

Justin James is the Lead Architect for Conigent.

13 comments
Realvdude
Realvdude

The PHP allows me to have data driven content, but with a firmly structured layout with HTML. One site I use a single PHP file for the main page and menu, which calls itself with a flag for different inline content, based on a menu selection.

Dethpod
Dethpod

99% of what I do is database driven. However, since more and more of my time is being spent doing AJAX/jQuery development so most of my database interaction could be done with (in theory) static HTML pages talking to web services. I wouldn't call TiddlyWiki static HTML. It reminds me of of the old PERL apps (Matt's Script Archive anyone?) from the bad old days that parsed flat files. TitddlyWiki just swapped out JS for PERL for parsing text.

herlizness
herlizness

a pair of BODY tags wrapped in a pair of HTML tags You can spend yout time writing tags and attributes or you can spend it writing words .... I generallly opt for words

tr
tr

I use TiddlyWiki. It's a single HTML file with javascript wiki functionality. I keep a master file on my home server and add any updates as needed. Then I upload the file to my web server and have a flexible system with menus and dynamic data as needed. You can also display content from external sources with a little HTML code.

Ajax4Hire
Ajax4Hire

Static in the sense that once the HTML is cast from JavaScript, there is no change. Mostly static in the sense that I use JavaScript to "build" the site. It is much easier to put Name+Link+Image+Description in a table and then have JavaScript re-cast into full HTML. When you are managing various pages on the same web-site and you want consistency, again, the source JavaScript to have a nice navigation framework. Also, JavaScript is easy to cross-site manage.

bobdavis321
bobdavis321 like.author.displayName 1 Like

I can have a web site up in 15 minutes using WordPress, then I customize the heck out of it by editing the HTML and PHP. I also think Java is EVIL! BAN JAVA and save the Internet!

serpentsnare
serpentsnare

All of my content is dynamic, it's generated using document object model (php DOMDocument) and it is better as dynamic, as much of my content is database driven with functions and classes that generate the code. To cut down on server resources though, I cache the hell out of my site via APC. When a change to database is made that impacts content, impacted cached content is killed. When a page is requested, it uses cached content if available - if not available, it generates content, caches it, and then uses it. Really works out well that way. With respect to CMS - I use my own because too many of the pre-packages ones have had serious security holes that were the result of just plain sloppy code. By using my own, I avoid other peoples sloppy code and my site is not an instant target when a new hole is discovered in one of the popular ones.

isscomputertech
isscomputertech

I have been using a CMS for a few years now and once I really understood how to use it I have found there is no better way to manage mt sites. I'm not sure what your choice of CMS is (or was) but Joomla is very powerful and easy to use once you understand the administrative side of it. There is a learning curve but I had my first site up and running about 3 months after starting to work with it. I would recommend it to anyone who is looking for a powerful and effective way to manage their website.

fjpoblam
fjpoblam like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I hand code my site and those of all 7 of my clients

Professor8
Professor8 like.author.displayName 1 Like

I have used PHP and Perl and Python, even a little Java, but for most purposes static HTML is best, and allows people to find my content they want using ixquick or whatever. I type it up in Xcode to have the syntax highlighting. It aint beeeyoutiful, but it makes the info accessible (in contrast, I've seen quite a few sites wrecked in face-lifts and other "enhancements", a few of them repeatedly). I dinked with several of the GUI web page generators, but they were all defective, always getting in the way at some crucial point. A relative was top R&D exec at one of the popular content management software outfits, but I never saw enough value there. Javascript and .net are just evil.

mindilator
mindilator

i somewhat agree with CMSes being a hassle to maintain. if it's a personal site that isn't huge and you don't have other people you know working on it, i think it's overkill. but i would still use a lightweight framework to make managing the static html easier. i use php so there are many available, but anything for your language of choice that just does MVC would be helpful in my eyes. if no lightweight framework is available for your language of choice, then you might be trying to use a sledgehammer to hit a nail.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson like.author.displayName 1 Like

intrigues me. I use it for all the stuff that's not going to change....

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

I write all my code by hand (or copypasta) it is mostly static and standards compliant. I use some PHP when the need for variables arises. It's simple and elegant but all the web 2.0 people call it "boring".