The way "you see my argument" is like someone who just learned what a strawman is, and was very excited to try it out. The issue at hand is architecture, which

The way "you see my argument" is like someone who just learned what a strawman is, and was very excited to try it out. The issue at hand is architecture, which engineers are very much interested in, and not underlying infrastructure implementation details, which would fall closer to the category of "raw materials". Despite that, in the real world engineers have been concerned even with the shape of the sand particles forming their building's foundation, as it impacts the structural integrity of the entire project (actual case study in Dubai). You find CMS-es too rigid. I find CMS-es can be more flexible than RoR, which I find too rigid, UNLESS you fork it and break the framework constraints, which is what Twitter did early on, BTW, so they can evolve the app. But it depends what you call a CMS. A person well versed in CRUD apps, seems to think of a CMS as a premade CRUD app, just bunch of forms with a few fields and a WYSIWYG HTML editor for the page body. But that's primitive, and barely scratching the surface. I wonder if you're familiar with Drupal's node architecture. I don't like Drupal, but it's popular, so it can be a subject of discussion. The Emacs buffer architecture is also relevant, despite we don't often think of Emacs as a CMS.