MT was fairly clumsy in some ways by comparison to WP, though my use of the word is very questionable. Updating templates was always a pain because we'd want to update a sidebar widget, and it would take hours to have that change reflected (regenerate all pages statically) because we had a legion of prolific writers and they churned out tons of content throughout the years. By comparison, WP was dynamic - change instantly reflected.
Of course, that difference had its disadvantages - you had to make sure WP traffic didn't melt the server(s), optimize for the traffic, then finally give up on caching strategies after traffic growth overwhelms conditions, and upgrade to a CDN to basically imitate a static site you were avoiding.
In some ways, we're making a full circle in blogging technology (and web in general), but here's a major WP disadvantage at this moment in time: it might take 32MB of ram to generate a 3kB page.
Of course, that difference had its disadvantages - you had to make sure WP traffic didn't melt the server(s), optimize for the traffic, then finally give up on caching strategies after traffic growth overwhelms conditions, and upgrade to a CDN to basically imitate a static site you were avoiding.
In some ways, we're making a full circle in blogging technology (and web in general), but here's a major WP disadvantage at this moment in time: it might take 32MB of ram to generate a 3kB page.