Static Ultra aims to be easy to use, easy to maintain, portable and useful. But admittedly, a few sacrifices had to be made to achieve this. This page aims to be as honest as possible about the potential downsides of using Static Ultra, so that you can make an informed choice. Personally I think it's worth it - after all, not only am I using Static Ultra to power this Static Ultra website, but I'm using it on my own website as well.
On "first page load", that is, the first time someone visits your site, Static Ultra is a little slower than a traditional webpage. On a fairly "average" page, it can take about 1 second, occasionally up to 2 seconds. The reason for that is as follows:
When loading a webpage, there is something called the "waterfall". Each stage on the waterfall is a trip to the server (or several trips in parallel). On a traditional webpage, the waterfall looks like this:
Static Ultra, on first page load, has a larger waterfall. It looks like this:
As you can see, Static Ultra has a few more trips to the server, so your page will take longer to load and render. Once done, subsequent page loads are much faster because Static Ultra overrides the default behaviour of link clicks and only loads what it needs to. Additionally, much stuff will be cached (stored) by the browser.
Personally I've not had a situation as of yet where this has been an issue, and thus far Static Ultra's entry points have been sufficient to get the job done. But I figured it was worth a mention.
If I think of or discover anything else, I'll add it here!
Oh, someone's still here? Alright let's Get Started with Static Ultra!