Hmmm. I assumed that the questioner was worried that he could be caught by some technicality if he went static or dynamic, and answered to reassure him that the technology was good for both, but static was faster. I tend to focus on the technical issues in my answers and assume that the procedural problems have already been thought about - I guess I should start paying more attention to the other parts of implementation beyond "Can it be done".

Some of your points rely on assumptions you have made about the situation the petitioner is in - for instance the method used to create static pages. They are valid points, but you are raising issues for a problem that hasn't been defined yet. He hasn't told us what build process he is considering, or what devel cycles he wants to follow.

When we did our static pages site, we actually wrote the site dynamically, and used it for a bit. When we were happy with it, we ran wget over it to create the static site. To us, this seemed to be the best way to get more performance out of the hardware that we had, and it worked.

I know this particular strategy won't work in every case, but it was excellent for us because we got the best of both worlds - instant feedback and debugging, and the performance boost from static pages.

As to the storage issue - well, I assumed that the questioner could do the sums. If the static website is bigger than the disk (or than the memory buffers) then clearly dynamic is better.

Please excuse this 5am post, I just wanted to get it out before retiring for the morning.

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.