Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

w3c.studio24.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 208 posts

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#141

Post by dathinab »

conatus wrote: post #128
dubcanada wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm obviously in my own bubble, but I don't understand people complaining about WordPress. WordPress is by far the worst CMS you could possibly use, every other single CMS is better in every capacity. Let's go through why - Uses PHP 5 spaghetti code with a handful of garbage event listeners and output buffering - Has no integration with composer at all - Doesn't have any form of content types without plugins - Has no…

Most of this plain isn't true - afraid it does feel very much like a bubble there! > - Uses PHP 5 spaghetti code with a handful of garbage event listeners and output buffering I mean it has listeners for almost every event you might want to interupt and trigger something on that are well documented and have been for decades. The PHP 5 code is very much legacy so I will grant you this. > - Has no integration with comp…

> I mean, people use it to run newspapers [...]

I wouldn't use that as an argument.

For me many maybe even most newspaper sites are just plain out bad designed.

They tend to be overloaded, slow to load, easy to overlook things easy to get accidental lost and hard to find things from lets say a week ago.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#142

Post by lwhi »

gexla wrote: post #137
lwhi wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Static generation is common approach, and has gained a lot of popularity in recent years.

Sure, I said dominant, not common. I don't know how representative these results are, but it's a clue. https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/WordPress I don't now if there are numbers for static sites on there, but my guess is that those numbers don't come close to Wordpress, especially for the top million sites.

Many CMSs are used to produce static sites; WordPress included.

The investment in tech like Gatsby, goes a long way to showing how the market does support this.

Market dominance, won't describe the trends a market is moving towards.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#143

Post by lwhi »

lixtra wrote: post #57
m_mueller wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WP is php, and it tends to take a ton of plugins of various quality, vendors and support to get it to where you want it. Last I looked at it, it didn’t even support multi-language out of the box.

That’s a feature not a bug. >90% of the websites don’t care about multi-language. Why should their CMS be more complex just to carter the rest? Plugins nicely separate the concern and let the authors of the plugins get paid for their efforts.

Surely it's a lack of features.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#145

Post by chiefalchemist »

rmccue wrote: post #123
chiefalchemist wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gutenberg shipped way too soon. It has been a textbook case of how not to launch a product. Solid idea...horrendous execution. Mullenweg owes the WP community a massive apology. He especially owes the #a11y Community an apology. Hint: In either case don't hold your breath. But more importantly, it should not be in core. Full stop. Once WP became REST-driven the push should have been to lighten core. That is to decoup…

WordPress has never internalised the ideas of API-first development or the ability to have a lightweight core, and to this day it’s still treated as an addon piece that could someday be removed. (Source: I wrote the REST API in WordPress and lead the API team for many years.)

Exactly. Let's make removable the piece that is the most industry standard compliant. The pieces that maximizes the flexibility of "the appliance". If GB came first, I'd agree with you. As we know, it did not.

But instead let's force feed - oops, I mean ship - and bake in a product (i.e., GB) that was half-baked technology implementation and barely an afterthought in terms of user experience. (Note: UX in this case includes all the devs who were begged to jump on board, and then jerked around like a puppy on the leash.)

WP core should be a service. Lean, tight and clean. Tightly coupling more and more likely unnecessary features to that doesn't help anyone. Trying to maintain that monolith is overly complicated. And so on.

We have the plugin architecture. If it's broken, then let's fix it. If it needs some sort of dependency manager, then let's talk about thst as well.

But Gutenberg? That makes 2020 look like a summer holiday, and we all know how bad 2020 has been :)

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#146

Post by paledot »

Given W3C's emphasis on URLs as a permanent reference to content, I'm surprised they use a CMS at all. My next blog-ish project will be static HTML compiled from markdown. When I move on, so long as I keep paying for hosting, it'll remain accessible at the original URL.

I don't know of a proper CMS that behaves this way, but I confess I haven't investigated the problem since it's not a pressing one for me right now.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#147

Post by dmje »

dubcanada wrote: post #116
frereubu wrote: post #76

I'm technical director of an agency that builds websites solely in WordPress, and I can say with feeling that Gutenberg has (so far) been a disaster not just in terms of accessibility but in terms of clarity of the development process. It's been a moving target since day one, with us constantly scrambling to keep up with large changes in each release. We held off for a while, and have only built three sites with it,…

I'm obviously in my own bubble, but I don't understand people complaining about WordPress. WordPress is by far the worst CMS you could possibly use, every other single CMS is better in every capacity. Let's go through why - Uses PHP 5 spaghetti code with a handful of garbage event listeners and output buffering - Has no integration with composer at all - Doesn't have any form of content types without plugins - Has no…

Literally everything in your list is about developers.

Literally nothing in your list is about editors or end users.

Maybe take a look at the words "content management platform" and consider whether maybe developers aren't the most important people in this particular world.

Most people love WordPress because most people aren't nerds. They want to easily publish content using a familiar and intuitive interface. They couldn't give a monkey's about whether it's written in PHP, Django, Perl, some Jamstack fad or BBC basic.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#148

Post by gexla »

seanwilson wrote: post #136
gexla wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use Wordpress as a headless CMS. > and I love how content changes are versioned in Git Developers love themselves some Git, but that's probably not the best content workflow tool for people who will write copy which actually accomplishes the goals of the site (like making sales.) Why do developers in this thread act as if it's going to be developers writing the content?

> Developers love themselves some Git, but that's probably not the best content workflow tool for people who will write copy which actually accomplishes the goals of the site (like making sales.) Why do developers in this thread act as if it's going to be developers writing the content? I never said to expose sales people to Git. Have you tried Netlify CMS? All it's doing is giving non-technical users a pretty fronte…

You mentioned that content changes are versioned in Git using the Netlify workflow. Why would that be useful if not for being part of an editor workflow? If it's not part of the editor workflow, is it part of the development workflow? What are we comparing this to? versioning in Google Docs? MySQL? How is it something I should "love?"

> Migrating static sites where the content + theme are all stored in Git is a dream compared to WordPress.

Wordpress (and similar) site migration has been a well solved problem for quite some time. Sure, there might be easier ways to do migration but that's a long ways down my list of things to worry about when choosing my tooling. Ease of migration isn't much of a consideration.

> A lot of WordPress sites aren't even under source control...

A lot of Wordpress sites are a dumpster fire actively attacking the internet. That's not the sites I build and manage. I'll create static websites for my own usage, but not for buyers of my services.

Any headless CMS service (as opposed to self hosted) is really just an option of interfaces on the market. Of the things which matter to buyers, that interface is everything on the back-end (the site as a whole has more important goals.) The buyer doesn't care about ease of migration, how content is stored, etc. Only developers care about these things. So, let's talk about what buyers want, not developers.

If a X headless CMS service can provide the best UI for the buyer, then that's what everyone should default to. If not, then all other bullet points don't matter.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#149

Post by gexla »

lwhi wrote: post #142
gexla wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I said dominant, not common. I don't know how representative these results are, but it's a clue. https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/WordPress I don't now if there are numbers for static sites on there, but my guess is that those numbers don't come close to Wordpress, especially for the top million sites.

Many CMSs are used to produce static sites; WordPress included. The investment in tech like Gatsby, goes a long way to showing how the market does support this. Market dominance, won't describe the trends a market is moving towards.

> Many CMSs are used to produce static sites; WordPress included.

So, which is it? Don't use Wordpress because it's PHP based and doesn't scale? Or Wordpress headless is okay because the front-end is static?

Static sites are the future, not Wordpress? Or Wordpress is still going to be a part of the headless market because the CMS supports that functionality?

You're confusing me.

Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project

#150

Post by gexla »

stoolpigeon wrote: post #41
gexla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Never mind - their contributing.md document makes clear it isn't a FOSS project. Where did you end up finding this information? How did you not see the "pricing" link in the navigation at their website? Or did you not look at their website? If you're having to pay for the software, then you probably don't need to dig much further to see that it's not FOSS. You seem to be making this more complicated than it actuall…

I went to the repo and read the license. The article made me think it was sold but open. Lots of FOSS software has purchase options. That alone doesn't indicate if something is foss or not. The license confused me, as I stated but they have another file "Contributing.md" that explicitly states it is not a FOSS license. Now I just wonder why anyone would work for them for free. The post linked here has the section "Th…

The first line of the license is a copyright statement from the developer. The wording of the license itself is owned by the creator.
Post reply on HN