The question comes up periodically as to why I switched to a content management system (CMS). I'll lay out some of the problems and how they are solved by a CMS (without evangelizing too much about which CMS I think is best) but I'll also highlight some of the costs that are involved in using one.
I chose a CMS (I presently use MovableType) because I was tired of having to update my templates the beginning of each week and felt that computers were meant to help make me more productive, not be forced to manually slave away at boring tasks.
For example, each week I would have to edit the main index page to update the dates for each day, the "last week" and "next week" links, the redirector page, and the calendar page that had links organized by month. This was a lot of detail work with attendant mistakes cropping up. Hence, much of my time was spent updating the templates instead of writing these insightful posts [g].
I understood, however, that switching to something to automate these tasks would come at a price.
Since I don't have the expertise or the time to write my own system, I would need to rely on someone else. By doing so, I give up control, to a certain extent, over how my site looks and operates. This is because most (all?) CMSs are based on a set of pre-written templates. While it is true that the templates can be modified, there are bits that should not be altered. Hence, to a great extent, websites using a CMS tend to look very similar, if not exactly alike.
But these templates, and the underlying PERL/Python scripts, are required to automate the very processes I didn't want to do by hand anymore.
Further, once going down this road, deciding to go back may be very difficult and time consuming. Some CMSs dynamically create the page as it is requested. But once served, it disappears into the ether. Lose the database where the posts are stored, or access to it as users of Dave Winer's service have found, and everything you have written is gone (even with the help of Google's cache or The WayBackMachine).
On the other hand, other CMSs (such as MT) use a static structure whereby pages are created and permanently archived (or as permanent as things can be on the Web) to the server. Nonetheless, if you want to switch to something else, you may still end up having to do much hand coding. In either case, you are essentially locked into the system you choose. Hence, you have to decide if the cost of having to switch, should you need or want to, is worth the benefits of any CMS.
In summary, using a CMS automates tasks that you would otherwise spend time doing. The downside is you loose a certain amount of control. In the end, only you can decide what the costs and benefits are of any system. Use whichever tool works best for you. But for now, I'm sticking with Ben and Mena Trott's MT.
Aloha!
