I won't be moving away from static website. It is perfect solution for a blog/CV type thing.
>you might think that minutes-long build processes are normal
If compiling your static site takes minutes there is something fundamentally wrong with your site in my opinion.
90%+ of the Web is just static sites with JS sprinkled on top. That has always been the case and will stay that way for the foreseeable future, because it's the most simple, pragmatic and accessible solution.
There are some interesting properties of server rendered websites and it can be the best option in some scenarios, but in others it adds complexity and burden on the end user. To suggest that static was a "fun diversion" detracts from the value and I feel we'll be going full-circle once again after we've realized that "what works" isn't always server render HTML.
> I won't be moving away from static website. It is perfect solution for a blog/CV type thing.
Yeah, I'm keeping an eye on these new "MPA"/"transitional" frameworks, but the thought of taking a static marketing page, which costs fractions of a cent to serve and is easy to put on a CDN, to now requiring a backend server which costs magnitudes more, seems foolish.