I feel I must be missing something? #teachme
@siobhan They let you have common parts/components. Like headers, footers, or even things like buttons that have a fixed style.
You can’t “include” one HTML file from another without doing some “build” step. This could be a command line tool. Or it could be something like Dreamweaver (back in the day).
@siobhan Having said that, many static site generators are overkill and have a ton of features that you don’t need.
What’s your skill set? Perhaps I can help you find something appropriate?

@siobhan You don’t need to change a thing!!
Sure. There’s lots of options for.l new ways to do things. And CSS is WAY better.
But the basics still work. And static hosting of files is now so free and easy.
E.g. https://app.netlify.com/drop
Or https://puter.com/ which lets you share a folder as a website
@siobhan I took the rite-of-passage that is building your own static site generator. This may be helpful insight into what and why.
Also, this helps you to not have to trawl through files. If you update a link in the header or footer you only do it once! 🙌😃
https://rosswintle.uk/2021/12/hang-on-php-is-a-static-site-generator/
Regular followers will have heard me talk about Turbo Admin. And you may also know that I am, where possible, trying to #DitchTheBuild and use vanilla HTML, CSS and JS as much as possible. So for the Turbo Admin website I kinda wanted to embrace this philosophy, get cheap-and-easy, static-file hosting, and make my build […]
@siobhan Ultimately the problem is you can't include stuff easily with just the web stack (headers, footers, etc).
Also I suppose it's slightly easier to write a post in Markdown than HTML, but eh.
I think it's largely just a matter of getting used to one workflow or the other. If you've got a way of achieving your goals, you don't need to switch to an entirely different system just to accomplish the same end result.
@siobhan The reason why people like static sites is because it puts no requirements on the web hosting. You can dump your files anywhere (github, cloud storage) and hey presto it's a website.
But if you've got PHP support anyway, there's nothing wrong with using it. At least, in a sensible way that doesn't open the door to hackers.
@siobhan As always with web stuff, it pays to start out extremely small and focussed rather than following "starter projects" or tutorials drowning in features.
The main benefit is "includes". Code the navigation once, just include it where you need it. Etc.
After that, templating languages of some sort to speed up HTML generation, like when you have many examples of the same thing on one page.
Start small and tightly focussed if you do go for a SSG (or framework, or anything really)
@siobhan I reckon there are three things at play here:
1) The neat ability to add something new to your site and everything is updated everywhere (e.g. a new navigation item)
2) Being big open source frameworks
3) Novelty. It’s a new take on a decades-old idea. Techies love new toys.

as an aside (not an answer to your question), you and others in this thread may find https://front-end.social/@ppk/112769187805097543 interesting, and the thread it’s in that Sara started
@SaraSoueidan Err .. good old SSI does wat HTML partials imports do, right? Or am I misunderstanding something profound here?