Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Symfony (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445460)

It's called Symfony, FYI

Re:Symfony (-1, Troll)

The Turd Burglar (1765270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446224)

Can I burgle some turds from your toilet?

blog (4, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445528)

if his blog is running on this framework it's as slow as molasses

Re:blog (-1, Redundant)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445560)

I just used the last of my mod points ... crap ..

Re:blog (2, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445564)

It is being Slashdotted right now, so it's not known whether the limitation is the framework speed, the server it's on, available bandwidth, database performance, or something else.

Foghorn Leghorn Alert (4, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445614)

That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son!

(just a little something I picked up in Sarcasm 101)

Re:Foghorn Leghorn Alert (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445714)

Someone should serve him up a mod point for the Foghorn Leghorn vernacular. Doesn't get much better than that curmudgeony old coc ... um, rambunctious rootser.

Re:Foghorn Leghorn Alert (2, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445958)

I'm built too low. The fast ones go over my head. I got a hole in my glove. You keep pitchin' 'em and I keep missin' 'em. I gotta keep my eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag.

Re:Foghorn Leghorn Alert (1)

bwintx (813768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445976)

Foghorn Leghorn upon being slashdotted: "Fortunately, Ah keep mah packets numbahed for just such an emuhgency."

Re:blog (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31446040)

Molasses? What are you? A fucking nigger?

Re:blog (0, Flamebait)

killmenow (184444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446080)

Why yes I is, boss! An' I was a fuckin' yo mama just this mo'nin'.

Re:blog (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31446326)

Enjoy the genital warts and scabies she gave you. My mom is a slut.

Re:blog (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446234)

He's running Wordpress. At least he could have of installed something other than a version of the hideous default theme that it comes with.

Re:blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31446734)

...could have installed...
Literacy rocks. Try it.

Re:blog (1)

XorNand (517466) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447404)

I once wrote a post on my blog that got frontpaged on /. and I had zero problems coping with the traffic. This was using Wordpress with the WP-Cache plugin on a modestly-powered server in a datacenter. I'm not really sure why so many people have issues (unless they aren't running WP-Cache, of course).

Re:blog (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449356)

I once wrote a post on my blog that got frontpaged on /. and I had zero problems coping with the traffic. This was using Wordpress with the WP-Cache plugin on a modestly-powered server in a datacenter. I'm not really sure why so many people have issues (unless they aren't running WP-Cache, of course).

Most people seem not to be aware of WP-Cache et al. It really should be rolled into the default base.. "if you are going to get more than a handful of visitors any time soon, check this box! [ ]"

Perfect timing... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31445628)

Perfect timing. I was just about to write a rather complex web application. How does this (or PHP in general) compare to, say, PERL in the execution speed, memory usage, and code manageability aspects? I'm sure I can get some quality, unbiased opinions here on the topic.

Thanks in Advance!

Re:Perfect timing... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31446070)

You'll find that PHP really isn't fast enough for complex applications. You should use Oracle instead.

google "cache:..." (2, Informative)

MessyBlob (1191033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445642)

cache:http://paul-m-jones.com/?cat=27 into Google search (the original link). With any luck, the old content being referred-to might be there.

Improving PHP (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31445650)

If the community wants to improve PHP they could start with making the function, class and method names case sensitive. For some unknown reason the powers behind PHP have chosen not fix this.

At the end of the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31445778)

... it's still PHP.

Lipstick on a pig and all that.

Re:At the end of the day... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31445994)

What does Sarah Palin have to do with this?

Re:At the end of the day... (0, Flamebait)

evanism (600676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446174)

any PHP framework cant be as slow as Palin

Re:At the end of the day... (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447310)

I dunno man Joomla is pretty fucking slow...

Re:At the end of the day... (0, Redundant)

The Turd Burglar (1765270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447784)

Trig still has PHP beat for slowness.

Re:At the end of the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447804)

He was offered a job as a lead php developer.

Re:At the end of the day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447862)

He was overqualified.

Performance? (1)

palmerj3 (900866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31445814)

I think the 18 second load time the homepage is experiencing now should help discredit the benchmark results

Re:Performance? (2, Informative)

Sollord (888521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446516)

Till one realizes that the site is posted on /. of all places and it might impact the server a small amount.

Re:Performance? (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446868)

Except that it uses Wordpress rather than PHPSolar or whatever it's called. Thus having no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.

Epic fail.

Re:Performance? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448050)

Is that "epic fail" on the part of the parent for not researching before he commented and being wrong, or "epic fail" on the part of the site owner for using WP instead of eating his own dogfood?

Yet another... (3, Insightful)

menkhaura (103150) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446056)

Yet another PHP framework. Won't this ever stop? Won't the development efforts ever be directed to only a handful of frameworks, to get the best we can instead of a gazillion half-(or un-) documented, over-(or under-) engineered frameworks?

Re:Yet another... (3, Funny)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446308)

That's the beauty of PHP. Everyone rolls their own everything because they can do it better than the other guy(s). That's why PHP remains the most vibrant community for web developers: there is a huge exchange of ideas that get recycled into new frameworks every day. Unlike other web development environments where you have to contend with other people's conventions who probably aren't as smart as you. When you go PHP, you know you're getting quality because it takes a special type of developer to wield the incredible power that raw PHP gives you.

Re:Yet another... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31446400)

Yes, its totally beautiful that literally every time one gets involved in a PHP project some assclown involved has already decided to use the fad of the week framework, increasing frustration and limiting productivity as you search furiously for the non-existent documentation / examples to find the "framework" way to do some mindnumbingly simple operation that should have never been wrapped in a framework in the first place.

Invariably the individual who has decided to use the framework usually has worked with it on a limited basis if ever before, and only wants to learn it because he's heard on some blog that it will increase his productivity. Since the average framework has a lifecycle of approximately 1 project all he's really done is slowed development of that project immensely to pick up a braindead API he will never see again.

Re:Yet another... (3, Insightful)

evanism (600676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447124)

I agree. The last 6 projects I've had the misfortune to take over were like this... unwieldy, evilly complex and error stuffed. What should have been simple was insanely complex. It took 4 to 6 weeks just to get anyone working on anything. I could have coded it in flat PHP in 2 days. Frameworks are the death of projects and its one of the reasons I no longer love programming.

Re:Yet another... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448864)

Sounds like one of our recent projects. The programming team spent a week debating which PHP framework was the "best" framework for the project. Especially when they got into "does it have a library/module/api for service XYZ?". I got frustrated and hacked together a functional prototype in Perl over that weekend. No frameworks other than CPAN modules. It was admittedly ugly code (I'm the systems guy), but the programmers were able to take my foundation and complete the project about a week ahead of schedule for once. Every time they need some API or function, there seemed to be a Perl Module for it already in CPAN, tested, and pretty much exactly what was needed.

PHP guys are easier to come by these days, but the last few PHP projects I've been involved in, it seems like they spend a lot of time trying out the Popular Framework of the year, only to decide to roll their own. I may be biased, but a lot of the projects seems like they could have been almost done if they just gone with Perl.

But I'm just a systems guy. I'm biased towards Perl because I like getting shit done.

Re:Yet another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31449466)

Last time I checked the pear stuff was outnumbering the cpan stuff. NB: I don't really code in either language anymore.

Re:Yet another... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446478)

I don't know if you're trying to be funny but what you describe is framework spaghetti. Everybody thinks they know how to do it better, so they keep reinventing the wheel - poorly. Producing frameworks that aren't stable aren't frameworks, it's just make as you go implementation with a nice name and likely to be thrown out and started all over again by the next guy who favors a different one because nothing is really standard or a convention. But I suppose it keeps web developers paid...

But it also allows new things to happen (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449760)

"Real" developers love to hate PHP because it goes against their rules, meanwhile the little language that could is the largest web language around. More site are run on PHP then anything else.

Why? Because it can. All the devs who want standards and a standard framework are the kinda dev's that take six months to produce the first draft of the first requirement pre-meeting agenda action point item. Sure, that is great if you work for the state or the fortune 500, but the new stuff happens with tiny companies started in someone's garage where the code has to be working yesterday.

As soon as other languages become capable of "just producing a site now", then PHP will start to becomes less dominant.

And yeah, this practice does result in thousand of badly written site in urgent need of being cleaned up. That is not a bad thing, if it was left to the ruby crowd, those sites would never have seen the light of day.

For people who understand business, having to rebuild your shop because it has become to small after a year is NOT a sign that you chose the wrong shop. It is a sign you did well. Only developers totally removed from the realities of daily life don't get this.

Oh and if you need conventions in your programming, aren't you really saying someone needs to hold your hand? For me the only quality measurement that works for software in the end is "does it allow the owner to make money". It can be the most horrible spaghetti code you ever saw, but if it allows the company to flourish and grow, then it is good code. I have seen to many "proper" development on very large projects that followed all the conventions and produced steaming piles of crap that were unusable. Look to every single government IT project for examples.

Re:Yet another... (2, Informative)

iamgnat (1015755) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446504)

When you go PHP, you know you're getting quality because it takes a special type of developer to wield the incredible power that raw PHP gives you.

You forgot a /s right? Cause you have to be joking.

PHP is indeed a powerful language, but your average PHP developer has no clue what they are doing if they can't just copy and paste it from somewhere (and then they still have trouble explaining how it's doing it). I'm not saying that there are good PHP people out there (I know a few actually), just that it has been the language of choice for anyone that picks up a book and thinks they are now a programmer for some time.

In my last job I worked extensively with PHP and often rolled my own libraries and objects even when the basic functionality exists simply because I disagree with fundamental decisions that were made (like how they (don't) handle errors being the most common. PHP supports Exceptions for christ sake. Use them!).

Re:Yet another... (0, Flamebait)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448396)

I'm not saying that there are good PHP people out there

Good. Neither are we.

Re:Yet another... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447826)

"the other guys" is often "core PHP developers". For many tasks, they've got two or three half-assed functions that sort of do it, but depending on the version, the number (sometimes order) of parameters they take differs, so you might as well write your own function instead.

Re:Yet another... (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446346)

Oh, you mean a PHP cartel.
Sure, that usually turns out fine.

Also, if you happen to be involved in any open source projects, could you please stop diluting the workforce and just go work for somebody established? You're hurting the big guys.

Re:Yet another... (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446374)

There aren't really any more production-ready frameworks for PHP as any other language. It's just a good deal easier to 'promote' a new PHP framework because people are so willing to put the story on a tech news website knowing that it'll generate plenty of chatter (mostly about how awful PHP is).

When a framework developer starts selling their code on the basis of execution speed rather than ease of use, flexibility or completeness you know you can ignore it. Any proper framework will cache templates into native code, or maybe cache content into static HTML, so the speed of the framework itself is meaningless - a good one does at little as possible for each page view.

Re:Yet another... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446438)

Its not just PHP, the entire OSS world is like this..

Everyone wants their own wheel as no one likes painting a wheel that belongs to someone else.

No. (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446468)

Yet another PHP framework. Won't this ever stop?

No. It won't. There's probably always going to be new ideas about abstractions with the potential to save developers effort once they're implemented. I should hope so, anyway.

  Won't the development efforts ever be directed to only a handful of frameworks?

The lion's share of attention is certainly directed towards a handful: Cake, Symfony, Zend (not actually a framework), and CodeIgniter probably topping the list, others like Akelos or Zoop or TinyMVC probably farther down but still striking the fancy of developers here or there.

But it pretty much comes down to developer itches, and the fact that thoroughly understanding a system is usually a task roughly equivalent to writing it.

Re:Yet another... (2, Insightful)

OzRoy (602691) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446968)

This is what is so annoying about all these new frameworks.

From a business point of view I will not develop with anything other than the most popular frameworks because if I need to hire a contractor, or even a new employee, it is more cost effective to use a popular framework that I don't have to train them in.

Re:Yet another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447290)

No.

This is the nature of open source. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and everyone else's stinks. What is the 'best we can' ? Does the we in that sentence include me because it doesn't look like we'd agree?

And this is where open source keeps tripping over it's own toes. You can't please everyone all the time. And the natural response from the majority? ... fork-off. So we end up with 670 different Linux distributions, 150 AJAX libraries, 50 mature PHP frameworks, multiple mature mysql distros. And everything has it's own foibles, problems, syntax, configuration settings ... gah!

PHP has a beautiful API! If this isn't enough of a framework for you, enhance it. Anything not targeted at the base API isn't worth considering.

Re:Yet another... (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448996)

While I am philosophically opposed to Ruby as a programming language, I ultimately decided to do all of my web development with Rails because the Ruby community (unlike the PHP community) puts all their development efforts behind a single, standardized framework that can have lots of books, tutorials, and examples written about it.

Re:Yet another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31449186)

You missed the point, here, then. Ruby itself is the fad of the week, and there is no competition within that ecosystem because nobody else except the Rails fad-seeking web develotards even give a shit about it. I reiterate that practically nobody gave a shit about, or even knew of, Ruby until the "Ruby on Rails" blog spampaign by that egocentric shitstain of a lead developer began. It's essentially an immature language previously relevant (and I may be assuming too much here, even) only in deep, dark corners of academia. Look at Twitter: it's always a great idea to run on a platform where much of your developer time is spent optimizing the language's virtual machine because it has never been scaled to a production implementation before, right?

Can't beat PHPulse (-1, Redundant)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446170)

Still slower than PHPulse www.phpulse.com

Phpulse is still faster (0, Redundant)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446266)

Phpulses benchmarks still put it at 5 times faster than Solar without any caching.

http://www.phpulse.com/benchmarks/?area=86 [phpulse.com]

Rails 3.1 Comparison (-1, Troll)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446368)

The reason nobody cares about your web framework is that they'd rather type:

def index
    @posts = Post.where(:status => 'public').order('created DESC')
end

instead of:


<?php
        public function actionIndex()
        { // public blog articles in descending order, all result pages
                $fetch = array(
                        'where' => array('blogs.status = ?' => 'public'),
                        'order' => 'blogs.created DESC',
                        'page' => 'all',
                ); // fetch all matching records
                $this->list = $this->_model->blogs->fetchAll($fetch);
        }
?>

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

rho (6063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446554)

Yeah, because Rails is being used everywhere.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (2, Interesting)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446582)

If we used what was everywhere everyone would be developing websites in .NET to deploy on their Windows intranet. But it's a lot easier to be sarcastic than have a point other than "lol nobody uses Rails" (as if that were even close to true).

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31446866)

So instead of a web framework in PHP, you're suggesting they use... a web framework in Ruby.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446912)

Masterfully observed

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (2, Insightful)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447352)

You may have a valid point, but I can't get over the trollish way you souped up those code examples to prove your point. You made the PHP example over-commented, bulky and redundant on purpose. A more accurate counterpart would more likely look like this:

public function actionIndex()
{
    $this->list = $this->_model->blogs->fetchAll(array(
        'where' => array('blogs.status = ?' => 'public'),
        'order' => 'blogs.created DESC'
    ));
}

Without knowing the actual library used for the PHP example, there might be saner and less ugly variants.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448856)

Um, why stop there? Forgive my lack of indent, I can't be bothered to figure it out.

That function can be identically written as:

public function actionIndex() {
$this->list = $this->_model->blogs->fetchAll(array('where' => array('blogs.status = ?' => 'public'),'order' => 'blogs.created DESC'));
}

Also, I have the feeling that 'blogs' was just thrown in to make it longer. This calls a function on a 'blogs' object, which is presumably linked to the blogs table somehow, and will presumably use 'blogs' by default. You can just use 'status' and 'created' as the Ruby example does. So:

public function actionIndex() {
$this->list = $this->_model->blogs->fetchAll(array('where' => array('status = ?' => 'public'),'order' => 'created DESC'));
}

Also, I don't know in what universe you commonly pass a single array to functions instead of, you know, actual function parameters. While I'm sure in some universe there's some framework that lets you do that, in reality you'd have a fetchAll($where,$order=NULL) function that you could use here, with array passing used for really options stuff, and an array passed in for $where. And, also, inexplicably, your function name has doubled in PHP.

So it would more likely be something like:

public function index() {
$this->list = $this->_model->blogs->fetchAll(array('status = ?' => 'public'), 'created DESC');
}

Vs:
def index
@posts = Post.where(:status => 'public').order('created DESC')
end

Yeah, that's massively shorter. Why, in PHP, you have to...um...explicitly use $this to access your own class and use array() to make an array. The horrors, the horrors!

Why on earth you're writing a public function for this is beyond me, though. I think you just did that because PHP takes longer to define a public function.

A sane programmer would just, instead of defining a class to have actionIndex() on, and then making such an object, and then calling $random_obect->actionIndex(); and then $records = $random_obect->list(); would just do this:

$records = $this->_model->blogs->fetchAll(array('status = ?' => 'public'), 'created DESC');

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448862)

I realized after I posted that I said 'you' a lot, and I was really talking about the grandparent, not you, thasmudyan.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449016)

Actually I pulled the sample straight from the documentation for the project in the OP.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449904)

Actually I pulled the sample straight from the documentation for the project in the OP.

I didn't realize this, sorry. But nevertheless, it seemed like an unfair and artificial comparison to me. Most people would agree that Rails is a nice, mature MVC framework and I doubt the same can be said about SolarPHP (which I personally don't know anything about). My perception was that your examples were chosen to present Ruby in a more concise and more elegant light, by force.

Again, which is not to say that there isn't a good point to be made here. Ruby code tends to be a little more concise and, as a PHP-heavy programmer myself, I have to concede that PHP's syntax is anything but elegant. It's one step away from the surreal ASCII art that is Perl ;-)

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447658)

You could also abbreviate every. posts == p, Post to P, and status to s. and public to p, and created to c. Then it would be.

@p = P.where(:s => 'p').order('created DESC')

Even less typing. cause typing is so tedious and IDE's have autocomplete and copy paste.

But then in PHP I could use something like http://framework.maintainable.com/mvc/3_model.php

Or
http://www.doctrine-project.org/
http://xyster.devweblog.org/
http://propel.phpdb.org/trac/

And they may not be as AWESOME, but they're alright.

In the end it depends what you want to do, how long you have to do it, what your stuck working with, and how fast it needs to run.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449080)

Look I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to cause so much outrage just by comparing code excerpts directly from the SolarPHP documentation ,with an example adapted from upcoming Rails 3.1 documentation.

You sound like someone with a fair share of experience with informed opinions about the tools you like to use. Well, me too. I think your last remark is dead-on, but I had a different point I was trying to make. I never said "Rails is awesome, everyone should use it all the time!"

I have to say though, your counterpoint is a bit forced. It's not about reducing keystrokes at all costs, it's about providing the programmer with useful abstractions and reducing the need for him to repeat him or herself. Let's be real here and just admit that PHP doesn't make this easy for frameworks.

Bad Mod Alert. (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448744)

(Score:0, Offtopic)

While the smugness of the parent post could be interpreted at a stretch as flamebait or trolling, it's in no way offtopic. Comparing code density/expressiveness between frameworks is topical.

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449222)

Why is every framework example about demonstrating how to create a blog?

Re:Rails 3.1 Comparison (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449752)

To paraphrase MadTV's Snoop Dogg video parody, "it's all about the blogz, baby, it's all about the blogz." I am ironic of course, but let's face it - the media paints this picture of Internet that is full of blogs.

No more frameworks please! (4, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446576)

They are by definition antisocial, expect everything to revolve around them and don’t want you to use just pieces of them.

Give us just a nice set of libraries. That’s it.
Let us choose what parts to use, what parts to get from other libraries, and what not to use at all.

Frameworks are like having to buy a bundle offer at the supermarket, when all you need is one part of it, and then at home also noticing that the parts are not playing nice with everything else.

But I hope the craze will be over soon, just like the Flash intro craze, the Java Applet craze, etc.

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31446914)

I've never understood this. Why are you telling other developers what to do with their time? If you don't want their framework, IGNORE IT. If you want libraries, build them.

Re:No more frameworks please! (3, Funny)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447106)

I've never understood this. Why are you telling other developers what to do with their time? If you don't want their framework, IGNORE IT. If you want libraries, build them.

you do realize that you are doing exactly what you are claiming you don't understand why people do, don't you?

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447958)

Many developers end up picking up the pieces of halfway finished projects leftover by others; nobody works in a vacuum.

A good developer should care about what others are doing for a variety of reasons.

Re:No more frameworks please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448018)

I don't care what they spend their time coding, its when they start to spew marketing-grade bullshit about the capabilities of their personal libraries, package them as a framework, and proceed to infect developers and fragment public domain code with yet another unnecessary, unoriginal, poorly conceived and poorly documented set of code generation tools that I get irate.

Fuck this guy and fuck his new framework. The world needs another PHP framework like I need a hole in my head.

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449778)

It's not that simple. What other web developers do, in the end bites YOU in the ass. Either in form of your boss asking you one sunny day "So, have you had any chance to experiment with that new Joomla thing?", and as you go on in your head "Noooo, please, not THAT conversation again!", he continues "You know, we expect our developers to pick up on the popular new technologies." Bla bla bla.

The butterfly effect of the programming business. So, don't talk like, anyone can do whatever the hell they want with their 'puter. Frameworks sometimes negatively affect developers who have never heard of them, or never WANTED to, for all the good reasons. If it's not your boss telling you what to do, it also happens some client pulls you in for a job, and then you discover you are in for redesigning their Joomla/EZ/Wordpress/Asswork website. Something the client did not assume to mention, because they think all developers can develop anything using anything. Sort of like if architects were expected to design a functional house, sketching with crayons on ricepaper.

Re:No more frameworks please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447092)

I briefly visited the website and couldn't find the gitweb or equivalent so that I could laugh at the source code. I did however find the class documentation to be amusing. eg:

$struct->addNewKey = 'something new has been added';
echo $struct->noSuchKey; // 'something new has been added'

Pfft!

I've already got all the useful functionality as libs that I authored myself and my code is probably of a higher standard. My vote would be to replace the term "web framework" with the term "web programming clusterfuck"; it's a much more realistic description. I doubt that even that change would stop poor programmers mistaking the authors self-promotion for programming ability -- which is the only way to explain the popularity of "web programming clusterfucks".

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447126)

I am in complete agreement with you.

I write all of my code. I re-use a lot of code I write in virtually every project I've ever worked on.

Sometimes I only need one very simple part of that code (eg: session management). I should (and I do) only need to include one file. That's it. One file.

I am disgusted with PEAR. Zend does not appeal to me and at a first glance this SolarPHP looks horrible. Just peeking at the index.php file it does not look nice. And they don't appear to close half of their .php files with '?>'. Why is that?

Re:No more frameworks please! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447244)

And they don't appear to close half of their .php files with '?>'. Why is that?

Because you avoid errors with trying to send headers after output since someone left whitespace at the end of a ?>

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

Dexx (34621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449070)

I've seen other frameworks do that as well. Why not just make sure there's no whitespace at the end of the file? It's not that hard.

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

Chris Graham (942108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449492)

cpanels online editor used to add them (maybe still does), possibly others do. It's easy for an online editor to accidentally do if they put some LF's before closing a textarea tag.

Re:No more frameworks please! (1, Informative)

profplump (309017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447274)

No closing ?> tag?

Because it's not XML, and it does not need to balance. The closing tag is just there to stop PHP processing and return to normal text mode. If you have no normal text to display it's completely optional. Heck, it might even help keep you from having trailing space/newlines/etc. at the end of your programatic output.

Now I personally prefer to close everything, and would never leave a hanging opening tag, but it's has no benefit toward processing the page.

Re:No more frameworks please! (4, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447378)

As the AC noted below, it's considered a best practice to omit the ?> to avoid accidentally including non-processed whitespace after the closing tag when you include the file. If someone hits space after ?>, and you include that file and then try to print a header, it causes an error.

Re:No more frameworks please! (0, Flamebait)

shelterit (142065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447414)

> And they don't appear to close half of their .php files with '?>'. Why is that? Ah, now that is because they are smarter than you. :) The hints are; 1) whitespace control, 2) conscious idea of separating code and markup, and 3) slight but minuscule speed improvement.

Re:No more frameworks please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448546)

I am happy you didn't get basted for the ?> comment. Good job everyone on showing restraint and taking the higher road.

Truth is, when you think you've learned everything there is to know about the intricacies of languages and best practices... You've missed something and need to go back to the books. I'm slowly learning that lesson. Judgment requires experience and you need to know when you've got the experience.

Zend Framework For You, then (3, Informative)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447174)

Give us just a nice set of libraries. That's it.

Pretty much Zend Framework in a Nutshell. Totally misnamed -- there is no Framework. It's a set of disparate libraries organized into a sort of class hierarchy that happens to have amongst it a Controller class.

Re:Zend Framework For You, then (1)

giuntag (833437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449428)

Totally agree - and yet naming the eZ Components that way lost 50% marketshare to the zend framework on day one. Talk about fads not existing in the it world...

Re:No more frameworks please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31447248)

FYI Zend Framework _is_ a library. You can selectively use different elements as needed in plain old PHP scripts or with other frameworks. I've used it as a library for both CakePHP and CodeIgniter apps.

Re:No more frameworks please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448538)

Solar *is* just a nice set of libraries. It has a separate application skeleton for those who want to get up and running quickly, as well as CLI tools to generate pieces of the basic structure.

Re:No more frameworks please! (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449800)

I completely agree with you. I don't think the craze will stop ever though. Part of the whole culture survives on the money, and money math unfortunately favors less work for more pay, i.e. using (leaky) abstractions that cut costs to get paid, even if the framework goes under later, it's not anybody's concern (except the client of course), because legally, the job was done. If you stretch this logic, you can see it is the same reason nobody codes in assembly for commercial production anymore - people always look for better tools. Sometimes though they find tools originally either made for something else (Flash) or the tools are so specialized, that even though they appear to fit perfectly for a particular kind of task, once the constraints or goals of this task change, it's a dead end for the tool user.

I have a contact that tries to make a generic website, using Wordpress for some reason. I have asked why Wordpress, a blogging CMS, but the person cannot give a good answer. They had used it before for blogs, came to like its ease of use, and came to think it should also fit fine for anything else than blogs, despite the fact that Wordpress goes pretty far to mark itself as a blogging CMS, nothing else. The human element fails?
Needless to mention, the person is pulling his hair now, because they need completely different functionality than Wordpress includes or easily allows for. But it is a bit too late, because a month was spent to set up the Wordpress site...

Debate? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31447624)

Let's see... the "debate" consists of 17 comments on some dude's blog.

Curious, I searched for solarphp debate [scroogle.org] and the first 12 results are a verbatim cut-n-paste of the same summary that was copy-pasted into the Slashdot article.

The subsequent results don't even touch on any kind of performance testing with solarphp. So, um... why is this on the front page again?

What is the point of PHP frameworks? (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448160)

I admit, I code a lot of PHP. And I have never felt the need to take a serious look at using any frameworks. Isn't the entire point of PHP that it makes a great rapid development platform?

Re:What is the point of PHP frameworks? (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448300)

I'd say that the reason PHP is so grate for rapid development is that it has a fantastic class library. I find that I need a good framework in any language for certain size projects. I'll admit that I use my own in my projects because when I started working in PHP there weren't good MVC or ORM libraries.

But if I'm doing a five page site I'll just embed the html. But I think what you're describing is what makes a good developer. Are you smart enough to know when you should be using a framework and when you should be writing straight php files with markup embedded (and how to write the later so you can eventually move to the former if necessary)?

Re:What is the point of PHP frameworks? (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448434)

I've found that as a hobbyist programmer, frameworks force me to be much more organized with my code by giving it structure. By the last project I did before I started using CodeIgniter, I had gotten pretty neat and organized, but CI takes it to a new level.

Re:What is the point of PHP frameworks? (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448710)

I've found that too. I'm a java programmer professionally, but use PHP for my hobbyist stuff (which includes buyplaytix.com which is a pretty large app). And I find I have to find a balance between write-once and so cumbersome that I won't actually write new code. My favorite piece of code is one class that I feel perfectly straddles the line between ORM and writing ad-hoc SQL. And that's something I think PHP does really well. Finding that balance between over-the-top architecture and the completely unintelligible scribbles.

Yes, it is (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449794)

The "problem" is what do you do if you do not have your own library of functions written? Or the company doesn't?

Then you can use a framework to get the basics down. Like for instance database abstration. What you say? That is already part of PHP...

Actually, I get your point entirely. It is the same with smarty... why on earth should you use a template language, in a template language?

I think all of this is partly because people expect it.

PHP is a scripting language, closer to perl then C or Java and people are not really used to such languages. They have always been considered to be to primitive.

And so the "proper" developers have always had a thing against PHP that allowed just anybody to start producing code and working web sites. You can see in a lot of frameworks the attempt to force PHP to become another language.

Do you need a framework? No, unless you come from a background where just raw coding is not how you do things. There is a difference between scripting and "programming". Please don't hang me up on those terms, but you probably get my meaning if I say the average Java developer would choke on Perl and the average Perl developer considers Java to be hopelessly over engineered.

One of my favorite discussions was with a Java developer about PHP's lack of proper garbage collection... he spend several hours trying to explain how important garbage collection is, in a script that runs for a few miliseconds and then is cleared completly from memory. It is like claiming that you absolutely need a parachute, on a kamikaze plane.

forget all this what about HIPHOP compiled PHP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448164)

Another framework. Big whoop. I'm more interested in things like HIPHOP that allow you to compile PHP to code for fast performance.

http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?story=358&blog=1

How does it compare to CodeIgniter? (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31448422)

Anyone who's used both have an opinion of how it compares to CodeIgniter? I've done one project in CI and I've been pretty happy with it, thinking of using it to do some larger projects soon. It forces you to have neat, short code. Disadvantage is it's spread out a little more between files, but with an application like TextPad I can move back and forth between those files pretty easily.

Looking at Solar, it does look like it has a crapload of classes that do useful things without having to reinvent the wheel. CI looks relatively smaller in comparison.

The thing I like about CI is you just load the libraries or classes that you need for that particular app, so it remains very lightweight.

Re:How does it compare to CodeIgniter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448498)

There are only a handful of classes required during a request on a bare-bones controller. Everything else is loaded as needed.

Some of the structuring in Solar is very different to other frameworks. Models are loaded through the model catalog, and depending on the query can return either a single model record, or a model collection of records (these are basically structs so they can be treated as objects or arrays).

If you don't see the sense of it, you will when you use it. Solars methodologies make it extremely flexible, so anything can be changed or extended if required.

Clarification (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31448462)

Pauls blog is indeed running Wordpress, but that's all it is - a personal blog. The framework site itself runs on Solar.

This "performance debate" that people keep mentioning started back in 2006 when Paul benchmarked a select few frameworks (http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=236). Now even the creator of Symfony uses this method to compare performance. And Solar is still faster.

It's not a new framework on the block. It has been in development for years and can behave as a full-stack framework, a collection of libraries, or something in the middle. Even Zend has borrowed ideas from Solar (http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=1113).

I like to think of it as a framework for people who already know PHP. Having worked with CakePHP, CodeIgniter and a few others, there are far too many people in those communities who think that by using a framework they don't need to learn how to program. I'm pretty confident these people won't understand Solar. Hooray!

Things to love about Solar: http://www.solarphp.com/trac/core/browser/trunk/info/description

Serious spagetti (1)

Aethedor (973725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31449606)

A simple 'grep' told me that this framework has 820 PHP files. I know the Solar site holds lots of documentation, but to know and understand a framework, I want to see what the code looks like. Just to get an idea of its quality and security. With 820 files, there is no way I'm every even going to give it a try. In my opinion, it should take less time to understand a framework than it takes time to build your own simple framework. This framework, with its many files and 'complex' structure and object extending, definitly failed on that one. Another one for my ignore list.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>