5 ms·

I've just started working with Joomla in the last few days. The only redeeming factor with it is that you can install it anywhere (since PHP is so prevalent). I

by kelvin0 10y ago

I've just started working with Joomla in the last few days. The only redeeming factor with it is that you can install it anywhere (since PHP is so prevalent). I wanted to install Django-CMS, but guess what: the host I have to work with does not support Python... So I'm stuck in CMS Land with choices that don't really help me much. Hopefully I'll get over the initial 'ugliness' in using Joomla. Relax CMS requires Node.js, which unfortunately is also not supported as much as PHP ... sigh

matt4077 10y ago
If Joomla today is similar to Joomla ca. 2010, I'd rather call each potential visitor and read them the html than use that CMS. I'm really quite fond of the static generators now. I'm not even sure why – the principle isn't much different from a dynamic CMS with caching. And data probably belongs in a DB rather than a bunch of files. But the architecture of Hugo etc. make them really easy to understand, I can host it on google cloud storage (and probably serve thousands simultaneously without breaking a sweat), it's as fast & save as possible and I don't have to worry about passenger/postgress/memcached/etc. making any trouble. I'm sure the next step will be web-based authoring tools for Hugo/Jekyll/etc., which will seem a little strange but actually get us close to the best of both worlds.
SahAssar 10y ago
I've found bolt.cm very nice to work with. Joomla is basically the most frustrating CMS experience I've had. Disclaimer: I'm on the bolt.cm team.
bruno12mota 10y ago
There's always some dependencies. Most hosting companies nowadays have servers setups that already brings you Node.js installed the same way you have servers with PHP configured. You just have to think PHP is declining and JavaScript rocket flying so things will turn on this. Also with docker setup on the way for relax, it'll be a breeze

by kelvin0 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

If Joomla today is similar to Joomla ca. 2010, I'd rather call each potential visitor and read them the html than use that CMS. I'm really quite fond of the static generators now. I'm not even sure why – the principle isn't much different from a dynamic CMS with caching. And data probably belongs in a DB rather than a bunch of files. But the architecture of Hugo etc. make them really easy to understand, I can host it on google cloud storage (and probably serve thousands simultaneously without breaking a sweat), it's as fast & save as possible and I don't have to worry about passenger/postgress/memcached/etc. making any trouble. I'm sure the next step will be web-based authoring tools for Hugo/Jekyll/etc., which will seem a little strange but actually get us close to the best of both worlds.

SahAssar 10y ago

I've found bolt.cm very nice to work with. Joomla is basically the most frustrating CMS experience I've had. Disclaimer: I'm on the bolt.cm team.

bruno12mota 10y ago

There's always some dependencies. Most hosting companies nowadays have servers setups that already brings you Node.js installed the same way you have servers with PHP configured. You just have to think PHP is declining and JavaScript rocket flying so things will turn on this. Also with docker setup on the way for relax, it'll be a breeze