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

Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

vapid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#41

Post by asadjb »

vinayms wrote: post #20

Is 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 th…

Because in my (somewhat limited) experience with CMSs' the definition of the data in separate from the layout, which makes sense if you're building a larger site where separation of view and data makes maintenance easier.

However, if all you're doing is building a 5 page website, it's much simpler to just put in the configurable parts in the HTML as you're building it and let Vapid handle the dashboard, which the client can easily use to make small changes as needed.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#42

Post by hmhrex »

nkg wrote: post #40
laurent123456 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its selling point seems to be that it's "simple". Although for me Wordpress for instance is simple too in that it can be up and running within 10 minutes.

This is where we start spilling hate about Wordpress, but we won't, because we are better than that. Hold hands, everybody...

Kumbaya, my friend.

But seriously, in my experience, I'd rather use something other than Wordpress. There are lots of things it does well, but not usually for the projects I work on. Use the tool that works well for the project.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#43

Post by hunvreus »

dstick wrote: post #27

Nice, was actually checking out Jekyll the other day but this looks 10x better for the purpose of getting a simple blog up and running without all the WP bloat. Will give it a try next week!

I've built Jekyll+ to handle editing GitHub pages, it may be worth a look; https://github.com/Wiredcraft/jekyllplus#readme

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#45

Post by bensonn »

dstick wrote: post #27

Nice, was actually checking out Jekyll the other day but this looks 10x better for the purpose of getting a simple blog up and running without all the WP bloat. Will give it a try next week!

Vapid seems like what I am after, a super simple CMS for "brochure" sites.

Using page templates might allow www.surrealcms.com to manage a blog. Builtin blogging is planned for version 7.1.

Hugo + Netlify is the direction I am going now but that still seems overkill.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#46

Post by atacrawl »

fastball wrote: post #8

I 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/

Funny, because I described it to some fellow devs as "if Perch and Jekyll had a baby."

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#47

Post by stdbrouw »

mimi89999 wrote: post #31
TotempaaltJ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be meant for people who build a lot of customizable, relatively simple websites. The devs write the HTML & CSS, and Vapid automatically generates admin dashboards for content management.

How is that different from what Django does?

Django's admin is great, but it's semi-automatic at best: you still have to specify exactly what the models should look like. This tool seems to infer the models and forms that are required from the html.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#48

Post by iamben »

nkg wrote: post #40
laurent123456 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its selling point seems to be that it's "simple". Although for me Wordpress for instance is simple too in that it can be up and running within 10 minutes.

This is where we start spilling hate about Wordpress, but we won't, because we are better than that. Hold hands, everybody...

Made many, many WP sites over the years for clients or otherwise. It's brilliant for what it is. You can do SO much with it. Stuff like this always intrigues me though - I'd happily replace WP for client sites where they may want to make some minor amends to copy / content (and thus I can sell "you can edit it yourself" as part of the package), but they don't have to worry about updating it and all the heaviness that WP brings.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#49

Post by jon-wood »

asadjb wrote: post #41
vinayms wrote: post #20

Is 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 th…

Because in my (somewhat limited) experience with CMSs' the definition of the data in separate from the layout, which makes sense if you're building a larger site where separation of view and data makes maintenance easier. However, if all you're doing is building a 5 page website, it's much simpler to just put in the configurable parts in the HTML as you're building it and let Vapid handle the dashboard, which the cli…

Honestly, if all you're building is a 5 page website its simpler to bundle infrequent content updates into a maintenance retainer with the client. In my experience there's no such thing as a simple CMS, its either small enough that you can handle it via email, or complex enough to need something larger.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#50

Post by topoftheforts »

saagarjha wrote: post #3

Unrelated, but “Vapid” is an interesting naming choice. The word has a clearly negative connotation, no?

People at Slack had the same doubts before they chose that name[1], but clearly it was a non-issue

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/633164558/slack-flickr-stewar...

Post reply on HN