[consulting] Drupal considerd dangerous

Chris Johnson cxjohnson at gmail.com
Tue Dec 26 12:20:47 UTC 2006

On 12/26/06, Kaliya * <identitywoman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/24/06, Sami Khan <sami at etopian.net> wrote:
> >
> > Drupal can and will pretty much do anything that a web application can do
> given it's in the right hands of people, this is in terms of functionality,
> ANYTHING!.If one of the core developers takes on a project that they're
> bound to finish regardless or any circumstance then yes Drupal can be
> developed into any type of application you want, period.
> Ok. so you Sami just proved the point of the original author of this thread.
> This is the arrogant 'it can do anything attitude' along with the caveat
> 'especially true if you are core.'
> Well the companies that adopted this and then were hurt likely heard the
> first sentence and didn't quite get the second sentence. They then found out
> about it when the got stuck and had to pay some core developers really high
> rates per hour to get them unstuck. Of course core guys can build what ever
> they want. The swim in the code all day long and have done so for years.
> This does not mean it is the right choice for a startup.

The problem with your example startup, Kaliya, is not that Drupal was
bad for them, or that Drupal didn't do what it was supposed to do, or
any other silly excuse.  The problem is that the startup did not do
its due-diligence on figuring out what it needed, what they could
afford and what tools met those needs.

Drupal is a toolkit.  It includes the most finely balanced hammer
around.  Your startup wanted to have some boards nailed together to
build something.  They grabbed Drupal and promptly hit themselves in
the thumb and screamed ouch.  What they should have done was hire a
carpenter.   For the carpenters out there, Drupal is a wonderful
toolbox.  Sure, most anyone can use a hammer to pound in a few nails
without smashing their fingers.  But to build something really
involved takes more skill and more tools.  Better tools make the job
far easier and faster, with better quality results.  An inability to
use the tool is not a valid criticism of the tool.  Ignorance of which
tool to use or that some skills are needed is also not a valid
criticism of the tool.

Waiting for something built with Ruby on Rails is like saying someone
is waiting for a set of automotive handtools from Mack after failing
to correctly use a set of automotive tools from Snap-On.  Both Mack
and Snap-On make high quality tools, but in the wrong hands, it
matters not.  If one doesn't know how to repair the brakes on the car,
it doesn't matter which tools one tries to use.  The results are bound
to be bad.

More information about the consulting mailing list