More information about the Underscore mailing list

[_] Drupal work wanted

Keir Moffatt hello at
Mon Feb 11 13:45:12 GMT 2013

On 11 February 2013 13:03, Ryan T Nerd <bristol.developer.ryan at>wrote:

> First things first, that link only works if you take off the word might,
> though I'm still not 100% sure of the relevance tbh.
> Drupal is terrible.
> 1. It murders databases with about 38937 more queries than should be needed
> for any given task.
> 2. It's slow. Hideously so.
> 3. It's like MVC never existed, there is literally no separation between
> the data you want, and its presentation.
> 4. Small companies use it for purposes that it's really not fit for (I
> admit not Drupal's fault per se but a reason for my hatred of it) because
> of its main advantage of being quick to build things in and being possible
> to build a basic site with very little skill.
> 5. 3rd party modules are a pain in the arse. Often poorly-written and with
> dodgy security, frequently abandoned, etc. The existence of such a large
> library of items of wildly-varying quality leads employers in the Drupal
> sphere to conclude that you can build xyz in 3 seconds because a module
> exists that almost does what you want, failing to understand that often the
> modules lack the flexibility to do EXACTLY what your client needs, leaving
> the options of a new module, horrific hacks or modifying a 3rd party module
> [please never ever do any of these things]
> 6. It's so damn procedural
> 7. Have you ever tried untangling a mess of modules all interacting with
> each other where something's not working? Again, usually a problem when
> dealing with 2nd hand code.
> 8. Projects created in Drupal are a maintenance nightmare. At the employers
> who have used Drupal, it has invariably been the Drupal sites which were
> unmaintainable, barely hanging on by a thread, while CodeIgniter stuff is a
> relative joy to work with.


Also, who ate all the <div>s? Drupal.

* / @iamkeir*