4 ms·

The fall of CMS and the rise of JavaScript frameworks. Bootstrap vs. Worpdress.

2 points by scriptproof 15y ago

gexla 15y ago
I don't agree with this at all. First off, he mentions Wordpress which is more of a blogging engine than a general CMS. Sure, if you have a blog then a static site generator is fine, but not all bloggers want to deal with static site generators. Wordpress isn't going anywhere. "This means putting the site content in a database, then generate a page from a SQL query. Then as we realize that it's too slow to display, a cache is used that creates for each page a HTML file locally." The problem isn't that queries are slow, it's that developers use too many queries when piecing their sites together in the CMS. I don't deal with the OS / scaling side in my day job, but I imagine that static files don't always give you the best performance. Loading static files still hits the disk. A better option is probably to load the content from memory based storage / caching. I have built a lot of client sites, and the blog is usually just one small part of the site. Static site generators wouldn't work for most of the sites I build.
- Lazare 15y ago
  Minor quibble: The difference between static files and memory based caching is minimal. Any server OS will cache "hot" files in RAM, so in day-to-day use the difference between nginx serving up static files from disk, or hitting memcached is pretty minimal - it's just a question of which part of the stack is caching your content in RAM. Caching, in general, is famously a very hard problem however, and prone to special corner cases. :) Your larger point is correct.
tzaman 15y ago
This article is comparing apples to oranges really. Bootstrap is a CSS framework, which has nothing to do with content administration, it just defines look and feel - or better yet, lays some basics on which developers can build their layouts faster. My CMS of choice is TYPO3 and since Bootstrap was released I tend to include it on all the pages, because I'm more productive and thus faster that way.
- scriptproof 15y ago
  Of course you can use the two together. The article is aimed to beginners that have to decide how to build their website, using a CMS or a framework? The point is that it seems to be a trend to use only HTML 5 and no CMS. That is interesting.
Lazare 15y ago
This article is gibberish and reads like the drug-addled ravings of someone who has no knowledge of web design. I don't even know where to START. The author seems to have no idea what a CMS is, what a Javascript framework is, or what Bootstrap is. He's sort of trying to compare a blog engine to a blog template, which is kind of like answering the age old question: What's better: a house or wall? We get insane gems like: The basic design of the blogging CMS has in fact always been deficient. This means putting the site content in a database, then generate a page from a SQL query. Then as we realize that it's too slow to display, a cache is used that creates for each page a HTML file locally. That's not really true, and Wordpress has drop-in plugins which handle all that for you anyhow. And we don't get anything about how a Javascript framework might work; needless to say they are all database backed. Then we see: Why put the contents into a database and then copy it to a file on the local system, rather than store it directly in an HTML container? Apparently he's advocating for static file generators like Jekyll? That...almost makes sense. Not that he names any such apps or frameworks, or gives any discussion why they're useful, and he apparently thinks they somehow are jQuery based...?! What a trainwreck. The only purpose seems to be to try and drive page rank to www.xaml.fr which doesn't look like a real site to me. I think this is just some sort of blogspam/linkbait/SEO trick.
- scriptproof 15y ago
  Take note that the author has designed two Wordpress themes. The point of the article is not to advocate for frameworks against CMS, but to observe a trend among webmasters. It this trend real? What is the cause? The article tries to answer to the latter, but you may disagree. The link to the demo (that you name linkspam) has been removed. Apparently it was misunderstood.

2 points by scriptproof 15y ago

gexla 15y ago

I don't agree with this at all. First off, he mentions Wordpress which is more of a blogging engine than a general CMS. Sure, if you have a blog then a static site generator is fine, but not all bloggers want to deal with static site generators. Wordpress isn't going anywhere. "This means putting the site content in a database, then generate a page from a SQL query. Then as we realize that it's too slow to display, a cache is used that creates for each page a HTML file locally." The problem isn't that queries are slow, it's that developers use too many queries when piecing their sites together in the CMS. I don't deal with the OS / scaling side in my day job, but I imagine that static files don't always give you the best performance. Loading static files still hits the disk. A better option is probably to load the content from memory based storage / caching. I have built a lot of client sites, and the blog is usually just one small part of the site. Static site generators wouldn't work for most of the sites I build.

Lazare 15y ago
Minor quibble: The difference between static files and memory based caching is minimal. Any server OS will cache "hot" files in RAM, so in day-to-day use the difference between nginx serving up static files from disk, or hitting memcached is pretty minimal - it's just a question of which part of the stack is caching your content in RAM. Caching, in general, is famously a very hard problem however, and prone to special corner cases. :) Your larger point is correct.

tzaman 15y ago

This article is comparing apples to oranges really. Bootstrap is a CSS framework, which has nothing to do with content administration, it just defines look and feel - or better yet, lays some basics on which developers can build their layouts faster. My CMS of choice is TYPO3 and since Bootstrap was released I tend to include it on all the pages, because I'm more productive and thus faster that way.

scriptproof 15y ago
Of course you can use the two together. The article is aimed to beginners that have to decide how to build their website, using a CMS or a framework? The point is that it seems to be a trend to use only HTML 5 and no CMS. That is interesting.

Lazare 15y ago

This article is gibberish and reads like the drug-addled ravings of someone who has no knowledge of web design. I don't even know where to START. The author seems to have no idea what a CMS is, what a Javascript framework is, or what Bootstrap is. He's sort of trying to compare a blog engine to a blog template, which is kind of like answering the age old question: What's better: a house or wall? We get insane gems like: The basic design of the blogging CMS has in fact always been deficient. This means putting the site content in a database, then generate a page from a SQL query. Then as we realize that it's too slow to display, a cache is used that creates for each page a HTML file locally. That's not really true, and Wordpress has drop-in plugins which handle all that for you anyhow. And we don't get anything about how a Javascript framework might work; needless to say they are all database backed. Then we see: Why put the contents into a database and then copy it to a file on the local system, rather than store it directly in an HTML container? Apparently he's advocating for static file generators like Jekyll? That...almost makes sense. Not that he names any such apps or frameworks, or gives any discussion why they're useful, and he apparently thinks they somehow are jQuery based...?! What a trainwreck. The only purpose seems to be to try and drive page rank to www.xaml.fr which doesn't look like a real site to me. I think this is just some sort of blogspam/linkbait/SEO trick.

scriptproof 15y ago
Take note that the author has designed two Wordpress themes. The point of the article is not to advocate for frameworks against CMS, but to observe a trend among webmasters. It this trend real? What is the cause? The article tries to answer to the latter, but you may disagree. The link to the demo (that you name linkspam) has been removed. Apparently it was misunderstood.