I have been setting up a couple of Drupal sites of late. Side work. The kind of thing that doesn't write papers or change the world, but puts a little money in my wallet. For one of these, I have been working on a fairly deep customization of one aspect of Drupal (I haven't decided whether I will write it up or not) and, in the process, I came across this blog entry: CMS battle: Drupal vs Joomla vs Custom Programming, on a blog named Paranoid Engineering (I sympathize with the title, if nothing else). The article itself was a fairly simple comparison of Drupal and Joomla which are, almost certainly, the biggest open source content management systems.
The table of features head to head is not terribly interesting. For the most part, the two have feature parity and, where they don't, you can extend them. The first thing I found interesting were the author's general opinions of the two:
"After test-driving them both I've came to these conclusions:
- Joomla is bloated, Drupal is minimal
- Drupal is easy to use and intuitive, Joomla is confusing
That was more than enough for a minimalist like me."
Oddly enough, those were my thoughts exactly when I used them. I got a chance on a contracting gig a ways back to use Joomla and I found its hierarchy of concepts to be confusing. When confronted with something confusing, there are two possibilities:
- It is something knew, beyond my current knowledge and learning it will be an eye-opening experience that will teach me something, even if I don't use it or don't like it. At least, my mind will have been stretched.
- It is garbage
Unfortunately, I felt that Joomla, by and large, fell under #2. I did not feel that I learned some grand cosmic ideas once I got past that initial confusion. I believed that someone had erected a large number of unhelpful, artificial barriers. Drupal (which I learned later), divides content into blocks, which you can assemble on pages. That is it, in a nutshell. There was a lot more classification in Joomla.
Moreover, I definitely fall in the minimalist camp. I would rather take something small and build it up into what I need than take something large and try to strip it down to what it should be. I used to be a Gentooer (and, if I could take a few weeks to set up my machine, I might very well be again; at this season of life I simply do not have the time), but I found the initial time compiling inconvenient. So, I tried Sabayon. Well, Sabayon had the desktop and essential apps compiled, which meant that I could at least work while upgrading everything. The problem was that Sabayon had a lot more on it than I wanted, so I tried to take the fluff off--and I broke the machine. Badly. I was running Gentoo again soon after. The moral of the story being that it is easier to add on than take away. So again, I would tend to agree with the author.
One commentator also remarked that they did not like Drupal because:
"What keeps surprising me about Drupal, is that they still stick to an outdated procedural programming style. PHP is moving more and more to OOP. Trying to force a programming style on a platform that's moving in a completely different direction is a weird choice to make."
Personally, I think this is a little harsh on Drupal. According to Wikipedia, the Drupal project began in 2001. Also, by Wikipedia, PHP 4 was released in May 2000. However, most servers are not running the latest release of a language (don't shoot the messenger, it's true) so writing in PHP 3-isms in late 2000 and early 2001 seems quite reasonable and, while PHP 4 had some OOP in it, I can tell you that it is second rate and actually pretty lousy. Frankly, if I had to write PHP 4, I wouldn't use its OOP. I know this because I have deployed code to servers running PHP 4 and had to backport the PHP 5 style classes. PHP 4 is just not a good environment for OOP, PHP 5 is okay and we'll see how PHP 6 does. Once your code is heavily procedural, fully OOPifying it would be a rather non trivial amount of work, if not a rewrite. And, of course, Joel on Software tells us not to rewrite.
The comments were probably more educational for me than the post. The commentators mentioned a few alternatives to the usual Joomla/Drupal dichotomy. The three I noticed there were:
Of the three, the only one I had heard of was Typo3, SilverStripe and Modx were new ones. Typo3 aims to be, in their own words, an enterprise level content management system. Modx, on the other hand, really caught my attention. It is not so much a CMS (although it has one) as it is a framework to build CMSes. The approach is interesting because with Drupal, Joomla, or Typo3 you take the base CMS and add a lot to it. You customize it. The idea of simply expediting a custom rolled solution certainly has some appeal over stack and restacking the blocks/modules/plug-ins/add-ons (or whatever the heck else they're called). I didn't spend much time looking at SilverStripe, but it does appear to be a very well polished CMS.
If all this sounds like a ramble, well, it is. It is a rambling exploration of a series of things I stumbled across. If anyone has any thoughts regarding the CMSes above or one that I have omitted, I'd love to hear about it/them.