Unrelated, but “Vapid” is an interesting naming choice. The word has a clearly negative connotation, no?
But in a physical context, vapid can be also mean "shallow" or "flat" which kind of matches the idea of a flat CMS, I guess.
Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
11–20 of 73 posts
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#12Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#13I’m impressed with the illustration: it does a very good job of conveying just what the product is. It is, admittedly, much simpler than most products, but it’s quite an achievement all the same. I imagine that it’s a slight simplification, but perhaps only very slight.
It looks to have a couple of errors, though: the intro field in it doesn’t look right: the default editor type is wysiwyg, so I presume there should be a toolbar there in practice; and it has required=false, so I presume the red star should be missing.
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#14I like the look of it! The basic idea has been executed already using PHP by Perch CMS[0], but this looks like it could be a good alternative (esp. if it's open source!) 0: https://grabaperch.com/
I'm a big fan of Processwire (open source), and I also love that you need to define fields explicitly. Doesn't turn into a circus of what's defined where, when it gets a little bit complicated? I never tried this model so I'm really asking.
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#15Unrelated, but “Vapid” is an interesting naming choice. The word has a clearly negative connotation, no?
Depends - it's defined as "offering nothing challenging". Creating content for others to read online has become as essential as being able to write with pen on paper. So in a sense, a CMS that isn't challenging for the average Joe is indeed better off being 'vapid'
The Oxford definition is a bit more specific: "offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging; bland". It doesn't really mean effortless or intuitive, more like the simple in simpleton. (The origin is apparently from vapour and was used to describe stale wine. [1])
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#16This is great. I've been wanting something like this for a while now.
I really like the website too. Minus the small bugs people have already mentioned, the actual design and information on the front page is perfect. A lot of projects shared on HN could learn from this page, tbh (I mean that in an encouraging way, not an attack, but so many project homepages don't explain the project very well).
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#17Unrelated, but “Vapid” is an interesting naming choice. The word has a clearly negative connotation, no?
It's a memorable 5 digit .com with no purposeful typos or other trickery, and it also gets people talking (like this thread right now). I think it's perfect.
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#18What are the differences between Vapid and Grav?
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#19I was looking for something like this the other day. I'm definitely trying it out this weekend!
Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS
#20Is the name actually "rapid" but as said by Barry Kripke?
But a more serious question is, how is this different from the hundreds of other CMS? I am not attacking, but just trying to understand what motivated this and why someone might choose this. As someone who would need a CMS in the near future I am interested in this genuinely.
Don't say RTFM because I did, but I didn't find anything like "why use vapid?". Is this point in the gist supposed to be the clincher?
> You only need to know HTML (plus CSS and JS to the extent that your design calls for it).