Maybe they found Wordpress to be simpler and easier to extend/use than Drupal? Drupal can be pretty unwieldy sometimes, esp. on big sites, here's one that moved away and why:
If all you need is a few template variations, a theme, and lots of editable content, Wordpress is a good choice as a basic CMS which is user friendly. You can easily cache the results and performance is fine; it actually makes a pretty good CMS for basic sites.
This guy switched to a web application framework, not another CMS.
Whenever Drupal is discussed, I see people comparing it to Rails, Django and other web application frameworks.
I don't get it. The CMS market is entirely different from the custom web application market. Most web sites run on some form of content management system: Day CQ5, SiteCore, Typo3, OpenText, Umbraco, ExpressionEngine, WordPress, Drupal, DotNetNuke, eZ, epiServer and so on. This is a huge market.
People who make the above comparison seem to be guys that have started web development with Drupal or Wordpress, and progressed to create ever more complex solutions over time. Then later they discover Rails. Congratulations.
I'm of the opinion, that ultimately, all CMS suck in one way or another, I hate them with a passion, but compared to most, Drupal is a shining beacon of light and reason. Seriously.
From a financial perspective, custom web applications usually do not make sense for businesses who want a complex web site. Most companies are also hesitant to shell out 200k+ on an untested, custom made piece of software developed by a small company. Compared to that, a SiteCore solution with its 60k license looks cheaper and more reliable.
I really like the transition the web is going through to a flat design. Focused 100% on content and highlighting the important bits using proper spacing, and typography relationships.
Kudos on the website. I love how it highlights crossbrowser, lightweight and features CSS3 selectors.
Oh, the irony... the new jQuery website layout is completely borked in IE 8. So much for cross-browser compatibility.
On a different note, I love how they have Stack Overflow listed in their "support" links. It's also cool that they're pushing CDN usage of jQuery more than the download version (based on relative space given to each on the home page).
It's woefully lazy for developers to not do cross-browser and cross-device testing. The site looks awful on iPad as well. If you don't have access to a device or browser, find someone who does or simulate it.
Legit criticism I guess. However, the audience addressed by the jQuery website is definitely not the same as the audience addressed by websites using the jQuery library. And the jQuery library is thoroughly tested against tons of browsers.
Possibly based on the implicit assumption that there's no intersection between the set of people who use jQuery ie. developers and designers (who are sane enough not to use IE) and the set of people who use IE.
However, it's worth noting that it works fine in IE8 if you have it set to IE8 Standards mode. (http://imgur.com/GEuyx8X) I'm sure that, like me, you had it set to IE7 Standards mode for testing purposes. Even jQuery itself no longer supports IE7.
It is a misconception that JQuery no longer supports IE7.
> First of all, let’s be very clear: The jQuery team does “worry about” IE 6/7/8, with jQuery 1.9. We’ve created a legacy-free jQuery 2.0 in order to address the many situations where older versions of IE aren’t needed. Some glorious day in the future, jQuery 2.0 will be the only version you’ll need; until then we’ll continue to maintain jQuery 1.9.
At least once a week I am gobsmacked by how excruciatingly and pointlessly picky developers can be.
Want to start a real stupid waste of time fight? Bring up code standards. Not that having a standard is wrong, but rather just how inflexible and dogmatic developers can suddenly become when you bring up tabbing, spaces or other first-world problems, developer-style.
Here's the thing. That header is huge and still exists on the docs pages.
I'm sure it looks great on a iMac, but on a 13" screen it takes up 1/3 of the space. Every page click on the API docs requires a scroll down to get to the juicy content below. My finger gets tired.
I love the PHP.net site docs. No header, just meat.
Edit: A quick look around and as a reminder to myself, best I could find (fast + useful + instant search): http://www.jqapi.com/#p=width
I love how critical everyone is being of this site, despite the fact this organization has saved us all so much effort and time during our careers.
I'm easily willing to forgive a few browser compatibility bugs considering what they've done for the Web. I'm also happy they've updated their site, it was a long time coming and I think it looks great, certainly an improvement in my eyes.
What exactly did they "do to the web", that other JS frameworks do not provide? Because I could name few things like requirejs/cometd that came from for example dojo foundation (dojotoolkit), that did influence the way people work with javascript.
For one, their documentation has consistently been accessible to beginners. Other frameworks might have had some crossover functionality, but Jq wrapped it all up in a neat, concise, package complete with a supportive community and excellent documentation that takes away the intimidation for new entrants.
Anyone who has written an 'Ajax' connection call in JavaScript can attest to the relief it has brought on that front alone.
DOM manipulation within your scripts, without having to patch together different libraries in an unreadable mess is nice too.
I've done limited things with the tool, and I can see its benefits clearly - maybe because I see the tool as a curated forest, where those packages you mentioned are like scattered, but awesome in their own right, trees.
Forgive me for the short response, I'm on a phone.
Totally weird observation, but this is the first time I'm seeing an aesthetic quite like the background [0] on that fat gray header area - sort of gritty like a blackboard, but yet nice and gridlike?
That's still there from the olden days when 'small' was a feature when compared to 'heavy' stuff like YUI, Dojo and all that.
Nowadays it's a bit of an irrelevance, unless you are on a mobile browser (and chances are if you are on a mobile browser you'll be using jQuery Mobile which is freaking slow even on my somewhat new Android phone)
It's absolutely not irrelevant - mobile usage is growing exponentially, in many areas it is nearing 50% usage, and mobile-oriented libraries like jQuery mobile are only used for apps, not websites (fortunately - they suck). Usage from 3G/4G devices (tablets, mobile routers/modems, etc) is also growing quickly. Optimizing delivery is important even on the desktop.
Not that jQuery's 32kb will make a world of difference, but that's not a good mindset to be spreading around.
49 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 90.5 ms ] threadhttp://erickennedy.org/Drupal-7-Reasons-to-Switch
If all you need is a few template variations, a theme, and lots of editable content, Wordpress is a good choice as a basic CMS which is user friendly. You can easily cache the results and performance is fine; it actually makes a pretty good CMS for basic sites.
Whenever Drupal is discussed, I see people comparing it to Rails, Django and other web application frameworks.
I don't get it. The CMS market is entirely different from the custom web application market. Most web sites run on some form of content management system: Day CQ5, SiteCore, Typo3, OpenText, Umbraco, ExpressionEngine, WordPress, Drupal, DotNetNuke, eZ, epiServer and so on. This is a huge market.
People who make the above comparison seem to be guys that have started web development with Drupal or Wordpress, and progressed to create ever more complex solutions over time. Then later they discover Rails. Congratulations.
I'm of the opinion, that ultimately, all CMS suck in one way or another, I hate them with a passion, but compared to most, Drupal is a shining beacon of light and reason. Seriously.
From a financial perspective, custom web applications usually do not make sense for businesses who want a complex web site. Most companies are also hesitant to shell out 200k+ on an untested, custom made piece of software developed by a small company. Compared to that, a SiteCore solution with its 60k license looks cheaper and more reliable.
(I know, new is open to interpretation, but generally when I see something on the HN front page, it is from within a day or two.)
Kudos on the website. I love how it highlights crossbrowser, lightweight and features CSS3 selectors.
On a different note, I love how they have Stack Overflow listed in their "support" links. It's also cool that they're pushing CDN usage of jQuery more than the download version (based on relative space given to each on the home page).
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200807-201302
I expect more from the jQuery team.
However, it's worth noting that it works fine in IE8 if you have it set to IE8 Standards mode. (http://imgur.com/GEuyx8X) I'm sure that, like me, you had it set to IE7 Standards mode for testing purposes. Even jQuery itself no longer supports IE7.
> First of all, let’s be very clear: The jQuery team does “worry about” IE 6/7/8, with jQuery 1.9. We’ve created a legacy-free jQuery 2.0 in order to address the many situations where older versions of IE aren’t needed. Some glorious day in the future, jQuery 2.0 will be the only version you’ll need; until then we’ll continue to maintain jQuery 1.9.
http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/14/the-state-of-jquery-2013/
From: http://jquery.com/browser-support/
"Any problem with jQuery in the above browsers should be considered and reported as a bug in jQuery."On a high-traffic site like this, I'm surprised they've not really addressed performance.
Currently:
Scripts at the top, not the bottom
CSS not concatenated and minimized
JS not minimized
GZIP not enabled on the server
Icons not in a sprite sheet
Also, invalid HTML.
I know, I need to chill out.
For instance I don't love the ( parens spacing ), is there a good reason for these added spaces?
Want to start a real stupid waste of time fight? Bring up code standards. Not that having a standard is wrong, but rather just how inflexible and dogmatic developers can suddenly become when you bring up tabbing, spaces or other first-world problems, developer-style.
I'm sure it looks great on a iMac, but on a 13" screen it takes up 1/3 of the space. Every page click on the API docs requires a scroll down to get to the juicy content below. My finger gets tired.
I love the PHP.net site docs. No header, just meat.
Edit: A quick look around and as a reminder to myself, best I could find (fast + useful + instant search): http://www.jqapi.com/#p=width
23th Snapshot: http://web.archive.org/web/20130122230349/http://jquery.com/
24th Snapshot: http://web.archive.org/web/20130124012815/http://jquery.com/
I'm easily willing to forgive a few browser compatibility bugs considering what they've done for the Web. I'm also happy they've updated their site, it was a long time coming and I think it looks great, certainly an improvement in my eyes.
Anyone who has written an 'Ajax' connection call in JavaScript can attest to the relief it has brought on that front alone.
DOM manipulation within your scripts, without having to patch together different libraries in an unreadable mess is nice too.
I've done limited things with the tool, and I can see its benefits clearly - maybe because I see the tool as a curated forest, where those packages you mentioned are like scattered, but awesome in their own right, trees.
Forgive me for the short response, I'm on a phone.
[0] Link: http://jquery.com/jquery-wp-content/themes/jquery/images/dar...
There's a free Creative Commons texture you can use available here: http://subtlepatterns.com/3px-tile/
Nowadays it's a bit of an irrelevance, unless you are on a mobile browser (and chances are if you are on a mobile browser you'll be using jQuery Mobile which is freaking slow even on my somewhat new Android phone)
Not that jQuery's 32kb will make a world of difference, but that's not a good mindset to be spreading around.