I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site.
It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented.
If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that renders in <100ms, is completely secure, and costs literally nothing to host, but requires markdown files and a bit of Git to deploy, and a Wordpress site that's as slow as hell, costs a fortune, is insecure, needs constant maintenance, but has a nice editing process, then they go for WP every time.
I'm always confused as to why these particular people get to be the ones who make the choice. But I've repeated this experiment multiple times and it has always come back with the same result.
It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented.
If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that renders in <100ms, is completely secure, and costs literally nothing to host, but requires markdown files and a bit of Git to deploy, and a Wordpress site that's as slow as hell, costs a fortune, is insecure, needs constant maintenance, but has a nice editing process, then they go for WP every time.
I'm always confused as to why these particular people get to be the ones who make the choice. But I've repeated this experiment multiple times and it has always come back with the same result.