Why “boring” sites live longer

Two recent posts make complementary cases for restraint in web development. Steren Giannini argues that a stack of HTML and CSS only—no build step, no templating—is maintenance-free, standards-based, portable, and effectively immortal. Jeremy Keith suggests starting from a “boring baseline” and adding tooling only when it becomes painful, noting that every dependency limits a project’s lifespan.

There is real merit in both positions, and it’s worth separating the claims about technology from the claims about longevity.

HTML and CSS will outlive other stacks

“Last” here means the site remains online and functional for decades. On that measure, HTML and CSS are near-certain bets. They predate most current technologies, remain actively developed, and no alternative seriously threatens them. Native platforms could theoretically displace the web, but they are fragmented and closed, and they lack the universal utility of the URL. The more likely trajectory—already visible—is native platforms embracing the web rather than replacing it.

Will a purely static site still work in 2041? Probably. But Giannini’s argument goes further: no tooling at all, not even templating. Updating shared navigation means using find-and-replace across files:

So… if I don’t use any templating system, how do I update my header, footer or nav? Well, simply by using the “Replace in files” feature of any good text editor. They don’t need frequent updates anyway. The benefits of using a templating system is not worth the cost of introducing the tooling it requires.

That position draws the line further back than most would. Dropping templating entirely trades one kind of technical debt for another—regular expressions and custom scripts replace a well-understood include mechanism, of which there are many lightweight options. But the underlying point holds: once one tool enters the stack, the pressure to add more grows, and each addition shortens the project’s shelf life.

Longevity is mostly about caring

Yet the stack may matter less than the enthusiasm for it suggests.

Looking at real sites, longevity does not correlate strongly with technology choices. The longest-lived projects—including this one—have survived because someone maintains them, and they often run on complex, evolving stacks. Tools are chosen to suit current needs, and when needs change, the technology changes. A stack mismatch does not typically kill a site; abandonment does.

If longevity is the goal, the priorities look more like:

  • 80% How much the owner cares about the site
  • 10% The site is not a financial burden
  • 5% The site is not a mental burden (the stack being a small part of this)
  • 5% The domain registration is renewed before it lapses

A boring stack can remove friction, and avoiding unnecessary dependencies is sound engineering. But no stack, however minimal, keeps a site alive if its owner loses interest, runs out of budget, or lets the domain expire. The technology merely has to stay out of the way; the will to keep the site running is what actually determines its fate.