5 ms·

Sorry but you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. > I don't think drupal had any actual design goals You dont THINK? Well maybe you should LE

Sorry but you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. > I don't think drupal had any actual design goals You dont THINK? Well maybe you should LEARN and then you will KNOW. Actually Drupal is very good (the best framework I know) for migration and interoperating with other software. But you don't do that by connecting DBs directly like you seems to want to do... (which is wrong with any framework/cms)

jacquesm 11y ago
> Sorry but you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. I ran a drupal based business for years and I know the platform - and it's shortcomings - very well. >> I don't think drupal had any actual design goals > You dont THINK? Well maybe you should LEARN and then you will KNOW. Well, I could have used stronger language there but I see no need. Because whatever I would have said you'd have found fault with the form rather than with the content. Believe me, I've spent enough time repairing and porting installations of drupal from one release to the next to know for a fact that their design goals are about as flexible as a rubber band and that they fail to deliver on the most basic ones (performance, ease of maintenance, backward compatibility and ease of upgrade). > Actually Drupal is very good (the best framework I know) for migration and interoperating with other software. Well, let's say our experiences probably are not identical. > But you don't do that by connecting DBs directly like you seems to want to do... (which is wrong with any framework/cms) For better or worse, DBs tend to be a relatively standard item and of course there is a 'right' way to do things (which is different for every platform), but having done several re-builds of large platforms we could probably agree on having a sane database schema and reasonable naming scheme to be a plus in such situations. So from a pragmatic point of view this 'wrong' way is often the only way to achieve certain goals, and with drupal this way is nailed shut to the point that you are not only locked in to drupal, you are most likely going to end up being locked in to a specific drupal version (due to their modules usually not making it past an upgrade). FWIW at some point in time I hosted thousands of drupal sites so I think (see, I'm doing it again, so feel free to take another cheap shot at me) that I have enough experience and familiarity with drupal to see it for what it is.
- mb_72 11y ago
  Your criticism seems to be well-founded in past experience, however as a casual developer and supported of Drupal sites for my own businesses and some charities, it 'just works', looks good, and is reasonably easy to look after. All my clients, are happy with the results. I have not ever bothered to examine performance nor work on it beyond enabling caching because there hasn't been a need to. Now admittedly these are not sites with millions of visitors, however several run on a single 2GB RAM VPS. And, yes, there is the problem with version upgrades, which in the past I've handled by a site redesign every several years, and paying someone to handle the data migration / mapping. From my point of view Drupal 'just works' for me (and several other web guys I know), clients are happy, hosting is cheap, and site performance is fine. In a world where there is always something to do, I still don't intend to look into it further than this, or fret over changing CMS because there is no need to.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I'm happy it works for you. Personally, drupal would need to do some very serious non-sexy re-factoring before I would consider it for any future project.
- audessuscest 11y ago
  Quantity is not quality... You could perfectly dont understand the Drupal core and still build billion Drupal site. And after reading your critics, you seem to really don't understand how Drupal entities work.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    You keep making sweeping statements about both drupal and about me without providing a single bit of information to the discussion, if you have factual information to contribute about why what I say is inaccurate I'm all ears. I've provided that (1) drupal is inefficient, (2) drupal sucks when it comes to backwards compatibility, (3) that drupal has a totally broken approach when it comes to data base schema design and finally (4) that other CMS's (such as Symfony2 and Laravel, and Yii as well) in the PHP ecosystem show that it is entirely possible to avoid most of these pitfalls. You say that 'drupal is how CMS's should be done, that's why all others fail' when in fact most of these others are succeeding where drupal is losing ground to all of the above and to the likes of wordpress and joomla (though those have less functionality). If you feel that drupal is how a CMS should be done then I'm perfectly ok with that but don't make it seem as if that is anything more than your personal view with which I disagree for the above reasons. And even if you're limited to the PHP eco-system, there are lots of alternatives. One thing I did not mention, but which I'll be more than happy to comment on now is that another thing that bugged me about the drupal ecosystem is that it seems as if it is altogether too much self-centered, unwilling to absorb best practices from the rest of the industry and a fairly toxic community which tends to be openly hostile to anything and everything that is not 'drupal'. I don't like that particular aspect of drupal one bit and it is this kind of attitude that is the reason why drupal to this date sees such a huge level of abandonment when it comes to modules, past version and large numbers of sites marooned on that code. It shows a total lack of respect, care and understanding of the kind of issues that the users of these systems have to deal with. I understand perfectly well how drupal maps its external interface to it's data model and when I tell you that this approach is broken beyond repair it is not my understanding that is deficient, it is drupal, when seen against the backdrop of properly designed software, of which we -fortunately- have plenty of examples. If you wish to ignore all that that is entirely your freedom, but recognize that this is akin to a religious point of view, you support it because you are invested in it rather than because you are aware of the alternatives. A good data model and the cruft that drupal produces are not even on the same scale when it comes to maintainability and efficiency, if you feel like arguing that point with actual facts and data to back it up I'd be most interested but I fear you'll end up coming short or having to admit that maybe the drupal way isn't all that good after all.

jacquesm 11y ago

> Sorry but you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. I ran a drupal based business for years and I know the platform - and it's shortcomings - very well. >> I don't think drupal had any actual design goals > You dont THINK? Well maybe you should LEARN and then you will KNOW. Well, I could have used stronger language there but I see no need. Because whatever I would have said you'd have found fault with the form rather than with the content. Believe me, I've spent enough time repairing and porting installations of drupal from one release to the next to know for a fact that their design goals are about as flexible as a rubber band and that they fail to deliver on the most basic ones (performance, ease of maintenance, backward compatibility and ease of upgrade). > Actually Drupal is very good (the best framework I know) for migration and interoperating with other software. Well, let's say our experiences probably are not identical. > But you don't do that by connecting DBs directly like you seems to want to do... (which is wrong with any framework/cms) For better or worse, DBs tend to be a relatively standard item and of course there is a 'right' way to do things (which is different for every platform), but having done several re-builds of large platforms we could probably agree on having a sane database schema and reasonable naming scheme to be a plus in such situations. So from a pragmatic point of view this 'wrong' way is often the only way to achieve certain goals, and with drupal this way is nailed shut to the point that you are not only locked in to drupal, you are most likely going to end up being locked in to a specific drupal version (due to their modules usually not making it past an upgrade). FWIW at some point in time I hosted thousands of drupal sites so I think (see, I'm doing it again, so feel free to take another cheap shot at me) that I have enough experience and familiarity with drupal to see it for what it is.

mb_72 11y ago
Your criticism seems to be well-founded in past experience, however as a casual developer and supported of Drupal sites for my own businesses and some charities, it 'just works', looks good, and is reasonably easy to look after. All my clients, are happy with the results. I have not ever bothered to examine performance nor work on it beyond enabling caching because there hasn't been a need to. Now admittedly these are not sites with millions of visitors, however several run on a single 2GB RAM VPS. And, yes, there is the problem with version upgrades, which in the past I've handled by a site redesign every several years, and paying someone to handle the data migration / mapping. From my point of view Drupal 'just works' for me (and several other web guys I know), clients are happy, hosting is cheap, and site performance is fine. In a world where there is always something to do, I still don't intend to look into it further than this, or fret over changing CMS because there is no need to.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I'm happy it works for you. Personally, drupal would need to do some very serious non-sexy re-factoring before I would consider it for any future project.
audessuscest 11y ago
Quantity is not quality... You could perfectly dont understand the Drupal core and still build billion Drupal site. And after reading your critics, you seem to really don't understand how Drupal entities work.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  You keep making sweeping statements about both drupal and about me without providing a single bit of information to the discussion, if you have factual information to contribute about why what I say is inaccurate I'm all ears. I've provided that (1) drupal is inefficient, (2) drupal sucks when it comes to backwards compatibility, (3) that drupal has a totally broken approach when it comes to data base schema design and finally (4) that other CMS's (such as Symfony2 and Laravel, and Yii as well) in the PHP ecosystem show that it is entirely possible to avoid most of these pitfalls. You say that 'drupal is how CMS's should be done, that's why all others fail' when in fact most of these others are succeeding where drupal is losing ground to all of the above and to the likes of wordpress and joomla (though those have less functionality). If you feel that drupal is how a CMS should be done then I'm perfectly ok with that but don't make it seem as if that is anything more than your personal view with which I disagree for the above reasons. And even if you're limited to the PHP eco-system, there are lots of alternatives. One thing I did not mention, but which I'll be more than happy to comment on now is that another thing that bugged me about the drupal ecosystem is that it seems as if it is altogether too much self-centered, unwilling to absorb best practices from the rest of the industry and a fairly toxic community which tends to be openly hostile to anything and everything that is not 'drupal'. I don't like that particular aspect of drupal one bit and it is this kind of attitude that is the reason why drupal to this date sees such a huge level of abandonment when it comes to modules, past version and large numbers of sites marooned on that code. It shows a total lack of respect, care and understanding of the kind of issues that the users of these systems have to deal with. I understand perfectly well how drupal maps its external interface to it's data model and when I tell you that this approach is broken beyond repair it is not my understanding that is deficient, it is drupal, when seen against the backdrop of properly designed software, of which we -fortunately- have plenty of examples. If you wish to ignore all that that is entirely your freedom, but recognize that this is akin to a religious point of view, you support it because you are invested in it rather than because you are aware of the alternatives. A good data model and the cruft that drupal produces are not even on the same scale when it comes to maintainability and efficiency, if you feel like arguing that point with actual facts and data to back it up I'd be most interested but I fear you'll end up coming short or having to admit that maybe the drupal way isn't all that good after all.