It depends (as with everything) on your goal and purpose.
Static sites have their uses (and there's a surprising amount of people who do run more complex blogs as static sites, me included), but they're a very different design goal.
The main thing that makes most traditional CMS systems nearly unworkable for me is the combination of a data lock-in and the inevitable mess that content + widgets ends up becoming in the database. I'm sure everyone has their own horror story with the Wordpress site that has 20 plugins and one decided it stopped playing nicely with the APIs and now you're untangling a mess set up by a secretary 3 years ago who didn't leave any notes (theoretic example).
Static sites are at least good at that; you can separate the core content of your site (blogposts/images/pages) from the layout and visual logic. Personally I've swapped between three different static site generators for my blog over the past 7 years (usually because another offered better functionality or just had a cooler CSS theme I wanted) and the process usually didn't take more than an hour or two.
Meanwhile, Wordpress took me several days to upgrade to a new version because a bunch of older extensions needed manual hacks to keep working.
On another degree, since I self-host my blog, it's quite nice to not have to bother with a webserver besides Nginx. Running any sort of webapp is a joy for security (and server usage), while just serving HTML/CSS/JS from a folder is something webservers are already pretty good at doing quickly with not that much of a load.
That said, there's a bunch of advantages with CMS systems too; accessibility being the big one. These are systems designed to make it easy to put up a new blogpost while not having to worry about layout and styling, and that makes them very accessible to the layman.
Static sites have their uses (and there's a surprising amount of people who do run more complex blogs as static sites, me included), but they're a very different design goal.
The main thing that makes most traditional CMS systems nearly unworkable for me is the combination of a data lock-in and the inevitable mess that content + widgets ends up becoming in the database. I'm sure everyone has their own horror story with the Wordpress site that has 20 plugins and one decided it stopped playing nicely with the APIs and now you're untangling a mess set up by a secretary 3 years ago who didn't leave any notes (theoretic example).
Static sites are at least good at that; you can separate the core content of your site (blogposts/images/pages) from the layout and visual logic. Personally I've swapped between three different static site generators for my blog over the past 7 years (usually because another offered better functionality or just had a cooler CSS theme I wanted) and the process usually didn't take more than an hour or two.
Meanwhile, Wordpress took me several days to upgrade to a new version because a bunch of older extensions needed manual hacks to keep working.
On another degree, since I self-host my blog, it's quite nice to not have to bother with a webserver besides Nginx. Running any sort of webapp is a joy for security (and server usage), while just serving HTML/CSS/JS from a folder is something webservers are already pretty good at doing quickly with not that much of a load.
That said, there's a bunch of advantages with CMS systems too; accessibility being the big one. These are systems designed to make it easy to put up a new blogpost while not having to worry about layout and styling, and that makes them very accessible to the layman.