«

The resident spammer brought up an interesting question, though of course feeding him is a bad idea. So I thought I'd bring it up in a separate thread.. Personally, I can't make up my mind whether it's better to rely on a CMS (like WordPress), which I have no understanding of, or rely instead on my own abilities, and work in just HTML and CSS.

I mean, what happens if I need to fix something? I can assume that WP doesn't *need* fixing, but then even in the realm of tweaking the code, I would be lost (as would a lot of other people).

Also, in terms of loading time, I think there's more to it than just whether or not a dynamic page will cache. Handcoding results in smaller projects in general, at least with me, because I'm not going to have the skills to work with PHP and MySQL in the first place. There's not going to be tons of external files etc. When I sat down to re-do my eBook site myself, the amount of code probably lessened by 99%.

Anyway, I come by here every day and see very little to read or comment on.Thought I would offer the group something to discuss. If no one is interested, sorry for taking up your time.

Ian <> wrote in
news:763e4c69-1f08-4c1f-82db-:

> The resident spammer brought up an interesting question, though of
> course feeding him is a bad idea. So I thought I'd bring it up in a
> separate thread. Personally, I can't make up my mind whether it's
> better to rely on a CMS (like WordPress), which I have no
> understanding of, or rely instead on my own abilities, and work in
> just HTML and CSS.

FWIW, I have always coded the CSS, HTML and Javscript "by hand". For sure,
it takes longer. But what you learn will always be more generally useful
instead of just for building sites using a particular tool.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:23:56 PM UTC-4, Mike Duffy wrote:
> FWIW, I have always coded the CSS, HTML and Javscript "by hand". For sure,
> it takes longer. But what you learn will always be more generally useful
> instead of just for building sites using a particular tool.

I agree that it's best to learn to do it on your own, but what does that benefit the end user? All they care about is functionality.

Playing devil's advocate a bit, but there it is. Hope you're well.

Ian <> wrote in
news:0835d5cf-0323-4347-981a-:

> I agree that it's best to learn to do it on your own, but what does
> that benefit the end user? All they care about is functionality.

It is possible to make a distinction between cost (money & time) of the
initial deliverable as opposed to maintenance (money & time).

Quicky & dirty is how Bill Gates made his billions. The initial Windows
releases had competitors that were superior, but were either more
expensive, or not quite ready.

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:13:03 PM UTC-4, Mike Duffy wrote:
> It is possible to make a distinction between cost (money & time) of the
> initial deliverable as opposed to maintenance (money & time).

Well, I may not have posed the right question to begin with. I think, on the one hand, you have your own skill set, and maybe it's best to work within those parameters. To not rely on code you can't read and work on.

OTOH, you have a community of coders who maintain CMSs and frameworks, etc., that are far more powerful, and maybe it's best to leverage someone else's knowledge. To rely on code that you couldn't write yourself.

Which, that's not a question, per se, but I think you see what I mean. Hope you're well.

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:13:03 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy wrote:
> Ian <> wrote:
>
>> I agree that it's best to learn to do it on your own, but what does
>> that benefit the end user? All they care about is functionality.
>
> It is possible to make a distinction between cost (money & time) of the
> initial deliverable as opposed to maintenance (money & time).
>
> Quicky & dirty is how Bill Gates made his billions.

And, look at the maintenance mess as a result.

On 01/06/2012 00:07, Ian wrote:
> The resident spammer brought up an interesting question, though of course feeding him is a bad idea. So I thought I'd bring it up in a separate thread. Personally, I can't make up my mind whether it's better to rely on a CMS (like WordPress), which I have no understanding of, or rely instead on my own abilities, and work in just HTML and CSS.
>
> I mean, what happens if I need to fix something? I can assume that WP doesn't *need* fixing, but then even in the realm of tweaking the code, I would be lost (as would a lot of other people).
>
> Also, in terms of loading time, I think there's more to it than just whether or not a dynamic page will cache. Handcoding results in smaller projects in general, at least with me, because I'm not going to have the skills to work with PHP and MySQL in the first place. There's not going to be tons of external files etc. When I sat down to re-do my eBook site myself, the amount of code probably lessened by 99%.
>
> Anyway, I come by here every day and see very little to read or comment on. Thought I would offer the group something to discuss. If no one is interested, sorry for taking up your time.

After some previous attempts to make sites with editors I finally taught
myself a bit of hand coding/html/css. It is really the only way to do it
imho, because unless you understand what the editor is doing you are
just blundering around making a site which might look okay on the
outside but if you ever have to update it or alter it it will be a desaster.

I am also using a CMS for all my sites now - it isn't an ether/or
proposition. If you can read and write the css & html then you can
really do good work with a CMS constructing your own themes and making
sure the content is displays like what it ought to. You don't need to
learn the php stuff. I have been using a fast, lightweight, opensource
CMS ( http://get-simple.info/ ) for reasons of economy. I must take a
look at Wordpress one day soon.

I am finding it good fun and not too hard and I might go pro soon.

Tim W

On 01/06/2012 03:13, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Quicky & dirty is how Bill Gates made his billions. The initial
> Windows releases had competitors that were superior, but were either
> more expensive, or not quite ready.

What were they? I remember having a copy of OS/2 on my desk, but it
didn't seem worth trying it out iirc.

Tim w

Here are some of my sites I have done as an amateur, to teach myself.


http://www.overstowey.com/
http://www.hairandscalpclinic.net/
http://www.biodanzasouthwest.co.uk/ (may be waiting for my client to
provide content)
http://www.aisholt.org/
http://www.timwhittingham.com/

Tim W

On Friday, June 1, 2012 9:34:35 AM UTC-4, Tim W wrote:
> I have been using a fast, lightweight, opensource
> CMS ( http://get-simple.info/ ) for reasons of economy. I must take a
> look at Wordpress one day soon.

I've got a lot of experience with WP. It works great as a blogging platform, not so well as a general-purpose CMS. I managed to bend it to my will for my eBook site, but I wouldn't want to stretch it further.

I agree that there is a third category: web design software that does things one can't do normally--but which is not supported by a large community, obviously. Just a community of one, and a lot of manuals.