Okay, so I\'m getting that a dynamic site is programming to pull from a DB to get a variety of \"content blocks\" as a framework to work from (similar to using reference cells, ranges, PT\'s in Excel on multiple worksheets without the need to replicate the data), whereas a static website is only what is programmed directly onto a give page. Is it that simple of a difference between the two ... and everything else (joomla, wordpress, drupal, EE) etc. is just a \"brand\" preference.
Kinda like Diesel vs. Gas (platform preference) ... then Ford, GMC, Volvo, etc. (brand preference). Is that a reasonable conceptual understanding of Static vs. Dynamic and the subsequent bevy of CMS/Blog platforms ??
If this is reasonably correct, then the pro/con question would be why/when would a static have advantages over dymanic (i.e. diesel vs. gas)?
Then continuing, it would seem that HTML vs. Flash is simply preference of programming language for writing code for the static site. Most everyone has \"bashed\" flash as being a poor preference, citing SEO as the \"con\" against Flash. Thus, it would seem that a similar subset of choices regarding language exists for dynamic sites ... or are they all relatively \"equal\" (unlike the HTML vs. Flash comparison) in the way the site will perform, i.e. are there any pro\'s/cons\'s to consider ??
Dec 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10203826 « Website Primer ... Pro's & Con's ??? »
