With a dynamic site, you'd only need to have different page templates. The content, stored in a database as plain text, would be the same for either version. If we had a flat site, which we wanted to be viewable on a Dick Tracy watch with a tiny video screen, we'd just about have to create a whole duplicate site, formatted appropriately. Ah, but had we that blessed entity, the Dynamic Site, then we'd only have to create a template that would format our content for that silly Dick Tracy watch. And when someone came out with a Star Trek communicator, which of course would require totally different formatting than the Dick Tracy watch, then would we truly begin to see how wise we were to choose the dynamic way.
Dynamic sites can be more crash-prone than flat sites.
With a flat site, the only piece of software gadgetry on your end is the Web server itself, and all the popular Web servers are fairly bulletproof. I'm sure to get a flood of protests about this statement, but speaking solely from my experience as a frequent Web surfer, I can tell you that dynamic sites tend to malfunction. The other big name, ColdFusion , has earned some harsh criticisms for its reliability. Of course, both products are being improved all the time, and their dependability, or lack thereof, is no different than any other type of complex software. A slightly higher error rate is the price you pay for the advantages of a dynamic site.