Came here to say something very much like this. A good static site generator has no downsides:
- It's easier for you, the savvy developer who groks the toolchain, because it allows structure and reduces repetition.
- It may very well be easier for the next person who wants to add a page or change some copy, because editing Markdown and running a couple (admittedly esoteric) commands is likely still easier than editing HTML directly.
- If the next person doesn't understand or like the toolchain, they can ignore it entirely and edit the HTML directly, which is no worse than if you didn't use a generator at all.
So yeah, you don't have to use tools, and yeah, CMS sites and compile-to-CSS is probably overused in the small-site market, but I think static-site-from-Markdown with vanilla CSS is a pretty sweet spot for this!
* No web UI. This may be a blocker for business folks who want to update a blog. This is a blocker for folks who are using devices like iPad's to update blogs (which is a huge reason why I moved away from things like Octopress and moved toward things like Ghost or Wordpress.) This may be a blocker for folks who don't always have the tools on whatever machine they're using at the time in order to generate the site.
* No imposed structure. It's easier to impose a web UI form that locks folks into certain workflows than it is to just give them a git repository with all sorts of stuff strung about, with no apparent structure other than the FS structure.
Whoops, I wasn't clear - I mean that using a static site generator has no downsides relative to writing HTML/CSS directly. Your downsides are both relative to using more tooling.
In terms of those downsides, I agree with you for larger sites, but not for the kind of really small sites the OP was talking about.
Surely that's not a static site? I think the author was trying to say that people rely to heavily on tools to achieve simple goals; using a tool or framework for your own amusement can sway you away from the actual goal, in his case making a static website for an animal shelter.
You can still have a web UI and produce a static website.
I've written blogging software that did just that. Every time the author edited/added something in the web UI (which saved to a db), it just re-'compiled' the particular pages.
One downside might be that if the next person (person N+1) doesn't know the system and just edits the HTML and CSS by hand for a few months or years, and then person N+k comes along and runs the generate script, he potentially blows away any edits that weren't done with markdown and the site generator.
I suppose you could use the static generator for the initial build and then throw it all away yourself, but that's basically the same as not using it at all.
- It's easier for you, the savvy developer who groks the toolchain, because it allows structure and reduces repetition.
- It may very well be easier for the next person who wants to add a page or change some copy, because editing Markdown and running a couple (admittedly esoteric) commands is likely still easier than editing HTML directly.
- If the next person doesn't understand or like the toolchain, they can ignore it entirely and edit the HTML directly, which is no worse than if you didn't use a generator at all.
So yeah, you don't have to use tools, and yeah, CMS sites and compile-to-CSS is probably overused in the small-site market, but I think static-site-from-Markdown with vanilla CSS is a pretty sweet spot for this!