"WordPress is a much better solution for simple sites, imo."

Right, the answer is "it depends," as with just about anything in this
domain.  Yes, for simple sites, it's great.  I use it (and love it)
for my blog.  I suspect WordPress will continue to get better at
larger, more complex deployments given its popularity...and then it'll
be more complex to learn ;P.

My own experience with Drupal was that yes, there was an initial steep
learning curve (more so than WordPress).  But now I find it quite easy
to implement a wide variety of sites and applications with it.  I am
pretty sure we'd be running into some significant problems extending
WordPress to handle our needs had we gone in that direction.  But, as
I said, we're probably different than most departments in this regard.

Of course, I am interested in lots of languages, frameworks and
technologies (heading to RailsConf in April), and one constant I have
observed among all of them is that there are tradeoffs with any piece
of technology you choose.  It's a matter of matching your needs to the
toolset at hand.

As for calling MySQL a "toy" database, well that is just dripping with
flame bait, and I won't take it :).

Cheers,
-C


On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Brian Hayden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Tony Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Since I've probably offended UMContent users already, I'll go ahead and offend the Drupal developers too by saying I personally think Drupal is over-engineered for most use cases. Most simple content management needs can be met by Wordpress. Like Drupal, it also has a huge user and developer community. If you need more sophisticated interaction, Drupal might offer better tools.
>
> Agreed. In my experience with Drupal so far, it's too complex for many common use cases, yet at the same time lacks code quality when you try to really exercise it. For example, if you want to use it with external data stores that run on non-toy (that is, non-MySQL) database software, you're in for a lot of work.
>
> WordPress is a much better solution for simple sites, imo.
>
> -Brian