Author: seastian

Como estas

Hola

Ale

That sentence is basically the whole argument in one line.

Whether WordPress is a CMS or a site builder comes down to this:

Is layout itself content?

---

If layout is content

Then Gutenberg is right.

A “page” is not:

title: About Us
body: We are a company founded in 1998…

but:

• a hero block
• followed by a 3-column feature grid
• followed by testimonials
• followed by a CTA banner

In that worldview:

• Layout is meaningful information.
• The page is its visual structure.
• Content is not reusable — it is authored for this exact page.

This is how marketing teams actually think.

So WordPress becomes a correct CMS for marketing websites.

---

If layout is not content

Then Directus is right.

“About Us” is:

company_founded_year: 1998
mission_statement: …
team_members: […]

And layout is:

• A projection of that data
• A rendering concern
• A frontend problem

In that worldview:

• Content must survive redesigns.
• Layout must be disposable.
• A website is just one consumer of your content.

This is how engineers think.

So Directus is a correct CMS for information systems.

---

Why mixing them breaks everything

The trouble is WordPress tries to live in both worlds:

• It stores layout as content
• While still pretending content is reusable

So you get:

• Blocks embedded in HTML
• Content that only renders properly in its original theme
• Exports that are meaningless without Gutenberg

It violates both models:

• Not clean enough for CMS purity
• Not clean enough for builder simplicity

---

The real divide

This is not about tools.

It’s about whether your organisation believes:

“A page is a designed artefact”
or
“A page is a view over data”.

WordPress chose the first.
Directus chose the second.

Neither is wrong — but once you choose, you can’t pretend the other one still holds.