Hugo-style static blog generators vs wordpress style blogging software is an unimportant implementation detail.
Emacs and files vs text boxes and relational database; in either case you're editing abstract "content" which is turned into HTML by an opaque and possibly Byzantine process which is difficult for most users to understand and control.
@wizard ...can't SQL Inject something that doesn't have SQL, and can't run shellcode on a broken interpreter or cgi if you don't have an interpreter or cgi.
Surface area reduction. :)
(that said, I have a wordpress blog and a static 1-page hugo website)
@renatoram but seriously, sites created by SSG's absolutely do "rely on a backend that can (will) break"
It's just that it breaking would prevent you from regenerating/updating the site, and wouldn't affect the existing site
@wizard different ball game.
Development works in stages: code that breaks in dev is normal, code that breaks in testing is normal and must be fixed, code that breaks in QA is bad, go back to dev and write better tests.
Code that passed every step of the Development Lifecycle, and still break in production, is BAD.
An SSG can't break in production because the production artifact is pages, not an application anymore. If it breaks in development, who cares? That's just how dev works.
@wizard this is obviously from a sysadmin POV: for the dev who has to write code that works and doesn't break the SSG obviously it's important that it breaks, and why, and how to fix it.
But it can't impact production (aside for a possible delay in releases), so it's by definition a lower level damage.
Wizard
Renato Ramonda