I think we are talking about different things. I'm not talking about static assets that you use in your site. I mean the entire site is static, and thus doesn't require any database or any server-side page generation. Which means not only that it is easier to scale since you don't even have any state in the database, but each node can also handle more traffic, because it is doing less. (And if you something like s3 or github pages, or netlify, you don't even need to worry about individual servers).

> The part that becomes significantly easier is updating that content or adding new ones. You don't need devops to rebuild and redeploy.

From my perspective as an SRE, that's actually a bad thing. I've seen content creators take down big parts of the site because they changed or deleted an asset. Most of the time that could have been caught by automated tests as part of a build pipeline, if one had been in place.

There is certainly a trade-off though. Wordpress and Drupal are great for quick turnaround content creation and editing. If you want your changes to be live as soon as you make them , Wordpress is better at that than a static site generator. On the other hand if you want rock-solid stability, and want any changes to go through a gamut of automated tests, Wordpress is not a good fit. It is possible, but it definitely isn't easy.

> I think we are talking about different things.

No, you aren’t. Wordpress has plugins to generate static html for all of the posts so visitors can be served without database hits.

There are also webhosts that specialize exactly in this kind of feature, generating those static assets and hosting them for you.