Wouldn't a blog be generally simpler and, thus, generally comparatively a better candidate for a "static" site than "a social network application"?
The Hacker News pages are "static" -- correct?
For my startup's Web site, I wrote the code in ASP.NET and made the site "static" before I heard about "static": So, "static" is okay with me for what I did write. When I finally (whew!!) go live, I hope the candidate users will not mind, or even notice, that the site is "static" and not single page. Today, do nearly all users expect a "single page" site and not like "static"?
Last time I checked, my pages send for ~44KB per page, and I'd guess that that is comparatively small?
If only as a user, a single page site can be amazing, subtle, surpising, not really intuitive or obvious, but by now there may be millions of such sites with significant differences between any two, thus, requiring users, by try it and find out, to learn how to use the site. In contrast, a static site seems to stand on a history of computer interaction, e.g., with the standard controls -- text boxes, check boxes, radio buttons, links -- that go back to some IBM work for the airline industry and the 3270 terminals and that by now maybe 3 billion people understand immediately, and if so then that can be an advantage.
