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

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#61

Post by mtberatwork »

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…

> However, if all you're doing is building a 5 page website,

Why not cut to the chase and show the client how to use FTP and a text editor? Why add more complexity beyond that?

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#63

Post by asadjb »

mtberatwork wrote: post #61
asadjb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> However, if all you're doing is building a 5 page website, Why not cut to the chase and show the client how to use FTP and a text editor? Why add more complexity beyond that?

Because sometime clients; especially extremely non-technical one, are scared of anything that looks like code. HTML definitely looks like code. :)

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#64

Post by zhte415 »

I read

>The HTML is the CMS Add simple template tags to a static webpage, and Vapid will automatically generate the dashboard for you. No config files, no other languages required

While puzzling over the links (curved purple lines with end-points no arrows) over the image above. Then I guessed, HTML tabs can be added, and webform will update to reflect to the new tabs added. Right?

This took a good couple of minutes of thinking what this does. I suggest adding a video or two on the landing page with a demo. A before/after. Perhaps I'm stupid on not getting this, but I guess a lot of people are far more stupid than me.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#65

Post by tasuki »

laurent123456 wrote: post #34
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…

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.

WordPress is _easy_. It most definitely isn't simple.

Highly recommend watching: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#66

Post by justtopost »

saagarjha wrote: post #7
mankash666 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'

Uh, I guess. Usually I equate it with “dull”.

Vapid, to me, is like an agressive ignorance or boredom. Someone uninteresting and yet proud of their 'basic-ness'. Someone concerned with the valueless superficial representation over the real article.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#67

Post by corwin7 »

pettou wrote: post #18

What are the differences between Vapid and Grav?

Grav is in use on many production sites and their support is amazing. When I run into an issue they resolve it like I'm on a paid contract. I have a shared environment with one grav install and a dozen sites which is not a normal install. Here's a really simple blog: https://www.sendthemtomir.com/

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#68

Post by yurishimo »

rthomas6 wrote: post #32
mimi89999 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from what Django does?

I think Vapid is for static sites. Unlike Django, WordPress, etc, there's no backend. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There does appear to be a backend, it’s just only used to generate the static files that are eventually served.

Re: Vapid: an intentionally simple CMS

#69

Post by yurishimo »

iamben wrote: post #48
nkg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The thing I always kind of thought was crappy is that because WP has so many plugins available, it becomes difficult to build even simple sites on a different platform if there is even a small chance you may need more functionality in the future.

My go to example is a simple payment order form (or sometimes forms in general depending on the CMS/static site generator).

If I use this tool, there are no forms. Client comes back a year from now and says they want to add a form. So after much fuss we move to something with forms. Then another year later, they want to take payments for $20 T shirts. We could spin up a 3rd party service but sometimes that makes things even more complicated.

If I started on WP, I can use one of the dozen form builders that support basic payments and I would have saved my client thousands of dollars of transfer fees and hours of my own time converting data between these platforms for little gain.

I say all this as someone who builds mostly WordPress sites at this time, though I’m always trying out new things too.

Post reply on HN