alt Hacker NewsYes, usually when you have a team and need governance over users / content / state. i.e. a publishing workflow that might have specific regulatory review requirements etc.
We're finding that this is becoming even more critical when users are using agents and the scale of changes / publishing increases. Pair that with things like AI regulations that require records of human providence etc, and a CMS becomes even more important.
In my experience, unless your non-dev CMS contributors are strictly filling in blanks with text (sometimes not even then), much of the work ends up delegated to the devs anyway. They are much better off working on a static build that deploys from CI pipelines in gitlab/github.
The benefits are massive ranging from better versioning, free choice of any tools under the sun, strict access control far away from people who don't even understand text encoding, clean CDN deployments, complete elimination of clunky SSR and its footguns, more precise control of the web server configuration, etc.
It's very rare nowadays to see any web devs who don't know the "full stack" from bare Apache/Nginx up to React (or even writing the exact necessary modern plain HTML/CSS/JS). That's why I distinguished the devs who prefer a CMS as "that kind of web dev".
This shift happened in the mid-2010s and I don't know anyone who ever looked back unless they're stuck slow-maintaining something older from before that point in time.
Licensing a CMS now seems like a pointless middleman cost for a subpar product from a time before we had good web standards that were well understood and supported. Every CMS sales pitch seems to be aimed squarely at middle management fearmongering for the most trivial and basic stuff any web dev already knows how to do a lot more efficiently and reliably without a CMS. All devs I see now have experience with these standards using more modern tools at large scale and with the full SDLC and business requirements in mind for over a decade.