When it comes to building a website, the most widely used thing in Japan is WordPress. Ask a web agency and it is the first thing proposed.
This time we built with something else, Astro. Not to sell it to anyone — we are writing it up because it is useful as an example of how to choose. The conclusion first: it is not about which is better, it is about how often you update and who does it.
What is actually different
With WordPress, every time someone opens a page, a program (PHP) runs on the server, pulls the article out of a database and assembles the page there and then. Being able to write articles from an admin screen is what that machinery is for.
With Astro, the HTML is built in advance, after the article is written. When a visitor arrives, the finished HTML is simply handed over. No program runs, no database is touched.
If you want an analogy: WordPress cooks to order, Astro serves what was prepared earlier.
What is good about WordPress (honestly)
Not choosing it does not make it bad.
- Anyone can write from the admin screen. Even someone uneasy with computers can update it like a word processor
- There is a lot of information about it. Search for whatever you are stuck on and somebody has usually answered it
- Plenty of people know it. Agencies, and someone to take it over later, are easy to find
- Plugins add anything. Booking forms, membership areas, even a shop
If several people in the office are updating it several times a week, WordPress is definitely the better choice.
Why we still did not choose it
Because we update a few times a month.
We are not rewriting this site daily. Write something about the work, add a job we have done. That is the extent of it. And once that is the case, not breaking when left alone is worth more than a convenient admin screen.
WordPress is machinery that keeps running, and machinery that keeps running needs keeping.
- Updating the core and the plugins (leave them and that is your way in)
- The accidents where an update breaks the layout
- Checking every time the PHP or database version moves up
For a contractor that is effort with nothing to do with the actual business. Nothing happening when it is left alone for six months fitted our reality better.
The numbers we measured
We measured this site.
| Page | Transfer | Files loaded |
|---|---|---|
| Home | 314KB | 10 |
| OS Notes (index) | 497KB | 11 |
| What we do | 271KB | 9 |
Of that, JavaScript is 21KB. The chat, opening and closing the menu, the filters — every moving part together comes to that.
WordPress sites are not necessarily heavy. But stack up a theme and plugins and a few hundred KB of JavaScript alone is not unusual. It also assumes a program runs on every visit, so when conditions are poor, the gap shows.
The whole site is 3.4MB, across 32 pages in three languages. That is everything sitting on the server. There is no database.
Where Astro is awkward
Honestly, this side too.
- There is no admin screen for writing. You write a text file and run the publish step
- You cannot see it straight away. The publish step (the build) takes tens of seconds
- Fewer people can do it. Compared with WordPress, far fewer agencies handle it
The articles on this site are currently written in a text format called Markdown. It is quick once you are used to it, but “anyone can touch it” would be a stretch. If several of us in the office ever want to update it frequently, moving to WordPress at that point is the right answer — that is how we see it.
Which to choose
| If this is your company | What suits you |
|---|---|
| Several people updating from an admin screen, several times a week | WordPress |
| You need booking, memberships or a shop | WordPress |
| A few updates a month, written by set people | A static site (Astro and the like) |
| You want to keep the upkeep down as far as possible | A static site |
Newer is not the same as better. It is only whether it fits how your own company updates.
In our case it was “a few times a month, written by set people”, so we took the latter. Incidentally, this article is written in Markdown too.