I once went to a professional to get a website done (as my ability (read: patience) to code websites had proved inadequate) and they constantly tried to upsell me on just the most stupid bullshit. When I pointed out how a lot of moving parts just means more things that could possibly break they blew me off and acted like it was a completely unreasonable concern. Needless to say ended up using a website builder instead and despite a few small glitches it works pretty well with JS completely disabled.

EDIT: I was particularly concerned with how heavily they were leaning on JS, to the point it flat out wouldn't load at all for some users. Having JS flair is perfectly fine on the side but when you can't even get fucking text to load without it, that's a problem.

I love simple sites, but I feel that there's something to be said for design philosophy vs tooling.

Take vanilla WordPress for example. I find it relatively easy to manage static content, especially when running it in a container to categorically prevent dependency concerns. Is it overkill for a simple site? Perhaps, but does it work and is it easy to use? It's possible to use these tools to manage a mostly static, text based, minimal to no script website. The key is recognizing the value of that simplicity and providing that simple to read, simple to use experience without distractions.

WordPress will never be as simple and performant as a truly static site, but we can do a lot to cut down the cognitive load, and we should.