[erquhart]

I definitely weighed that out, and I appreciate you mentioning it. I settled on this title because it's accurate for the implementor, and because folks are having a hard time understanding the benefit compared to a large solution like WordPress, as evidenced in this thread.

You can literally tack this CMS onto your existing site with a trivial amount of (configuration) code. You cannot in any sense do that with a traditional CMS. I'd call it tongue in cheek for sure, but I don't agree that it's a lie. Just a matter of perspective. Glad you like the project!

[detaro]

> because folks are having a hard time understanding the benefit compared to a large solution like WordPress, as evidenced in this thread.

So apparently the title failed to communicate this correctly. (IMHO, you should present it as a editing frontend or a backend UI or ... that's used in combination with other tools and services to form a CMS)

[WhitneyLand]

>>a trivial amount of (configuration) code

It’s not a matter of perspective given the target audience. Developers don’t think that doing something in “x lines of code” means configuration files.

It’s intentionally misleading, and that fact that you double down on it after it’s mentioned reflects on the company.

I’m not saying it an easy distinction to draw, in fact often it’s incredibly difficult and that’s why marketing claims have such wide legal latitude.

It’s just that in this case, given the foreseeable audience interpretation, and given the audience is known to have a penchant for unvarnished, straight talk about technology, it’s not a good decision for your company.

Startups come out of the gate attempting climbing mount everest. Given the difficultly, unforced tactical errors really need to be avoided, and corrected when pointed out.