[vinayms]

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 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).

[TotempaaltJ]

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.

[mimi89999]

How is that different from what Django does?

[floatrock]

Just spent 10 minutes with the demo. Here's what it appears to be:

- You create a bunch of static HTML pages with a bunch of tags like: {{field_name type=7_to_choose_from ...opts}}

- Vapid runs a node server that scans all your HTML files and parses out the tags in each html file

- The node server runs a CMS webapp (the "dashboard") that generates field inputs for the parsed tags (text inputs, image selectors, wysiwyg editors, etc... whatever matches your tag type)

- Data you input is persisted in a SQLite DB

- The node server serves up your static HTML pages as if they were any standard template (mustache, etc)

- It runs a watch server, so any changes to your files are auto updated

Onboarding demo seems to run as a 'development' server. Quick perusal of the docs don't describe what the production mode is (probably no watch server?).

That's all as far as I can tell. Seems fine for lightweight pages, as promised.

[stdbrouw]

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.

[rthomas6]

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

[yurishimo]

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

[asadjb]

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.

[jon-wood]

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.

[mtberatwork]

> 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?

[rchaud]

For likely the same reason a cleaning service doesn't offer to show the customer what chemical mixture to use to clean an especially grimy tub or oven. The customer is paying for the convenience, not a tutorial, and the cleaners aren't in the "teach a man/woman to fish" business.

[asadjb]

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

[laurent123456]

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.

[nkg]

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

[djsumdog]

It's hard to tell from the initial docs, but I think this generates pages statically, so unlike Wordpress, you're not relying on a DB to serve content.

If that's true, it seems like the kinda missing bridge/glue between generators like Jekyll/Hugo; allowing static content without needing to be a web dev.

[hmhrex]

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.

[iamben]

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.

[yurishimo]

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.

[tasuki]

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

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