subject:"Re\: \[PHP\] Re\: php framework, large site"


At 9:35 PM -0400 6/18/07, Robert Cummings wrote:

Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
rules and theories.



There's the quote of the day.

Cheers,

tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


At 1:41 PM +0800 6/19/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:35, Robert Cummings wrote:
  Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established

 rules and theories.


I'm sure most people on the list aren't looking to make revolutionary
advances in php programming. Most are simply looking for practical
answers to practical questions.


You missed the point.

Science is not just about php programming and php programmers are not 
just concerned about php, but rather it's application -- and it's the 
application that touches all science.


While list attendees seek solutions to their programming problems, 
I'm sure that most want to develop solid applications and hope they 
can contribute to the greater science. After all, like it or not, 
that's what we are doing anyway. And, along the way, some of us 
actually do grab the brass ring and make revolutionary advances.


Cheers,

tedd

--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Daniel Brown


On 6/19/07, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

At 9:35 PM -0400 6/18/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
rules and theories.


There's the quote of the day.


   Second.

--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Jochem Maas

Robert Cummings wrote:
 Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
 rules and theories.

Third.

not that my complete lack of knowledge theory and complete lack of respect
for rules has come to any kind of fruition :-P

PS - the troll seems to been subdued?

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Crayon Shin Chan

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:26, Robert Cummings wrote:

 Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages
 only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument.

I really wish you would make up your mind. On the one hand you value 
individuality and originality (or so you claim) and yet now you dismiss 
my quote because of it's lack of popularity? All great quotes comes from 
humble origins, and you yourself said that popularity does not equate to 
quality.

 I have little faith in your words now. If I
 wanted fallacious reasoning I'd go watch a commercial on the telly.

Your loss, not mine :)

 You're not very good at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In that case could you point out to me where you mistake my pointing out 
projects' lack of updates equates to a project's lack of popularity.

  Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of),
  not popularity.

 You implied it.

Where? How? Maybe the English that they taught me at school is subtly 
different to the English that you learnt.

 It doesn't seem like you're exchanging ideas.

That is a suggestion.

 I have plenty of ideas, but they would mostly be based on my experience
 writing InterJinn and what I hate about other frameworks I've come
 across, as such I chose to keep quiet rather than pollute his ideology
 with my own and sound like I'm tooting my own horn. I often find myself
 writing responses to people that are based on what I did or do in my
 framework... often I delete them before sending them because I don't
 like how it seems impartial. once in a while it still comes up, but I'm
 not perfect.

The OP was not asking questions on _how_ a framework should behave or 
_what_ a framework should contain. Rather the question was how to 
_start_ [writing a] php framwork [sic]. Your answer, should it ever be 
forthcoming, need not pollute his innocent mind with your framework 
ideals.

 One of the ways to do anything is to just wade in. 

Er, obviously. Can't really argue with that statement. Another true 
statement is One of the ways to do anything is to study the situation 
before you wade in. So your point?

 Who are you to 
 assess the OP's skills and determine that he is unable to make a
 reasonable assessment?

I think you were the one assessing the OP's skills. You stated that 
evaluating the available frameworks is a staggering task, yet suggest 
that the OP go ahead and write his own framework. In my life experience, 
judging is easier than creating. I know a good book when I read one, a 
good meal when I eat one and a good movie when I see one, however I'm not 
sure I know how to write a good novel, cook a good meal or make a good 
movie.

 But going back to your point about narrowing it down, you've
 already jumped to the conclusion that the OP has no clue what he's
 doing and so it follows that he probably wouldn't know how to begin
 narrowing down the candidates since that would require experience.

And yet he is able to put together a kickass framework sometime in the 
future through flirting with serendipity?

  So working as a one-person band on your very own framework how easy is
  it to get your code reviewed? And a security audit?

 I'm going to borrow a bit of your style here and make a fallacious
 statement... I write perfect code and I have no bugs.

There, your ego is showing through again :) I was using you as in the 
royal One, not you as in you, Robert.

Still, it's good to know that your code is flawless and can be relied 
upon.

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Crayon Shin Chan

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 13:47, Robert Cummings wrote:

 No, it's simple probability.

So it's probability now? Which has the greater probability:

1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and 
weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what you've 
learnt

2) just jump right in a create a kickass framework

Please note the distinction between possibility and probability.

 And many will encounter serendipity along the way regardless of what
 they are looking to achieve.

Now we're bypassing logical argument and relying on serendipity?

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Crayon Shin Chan

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:58, tedd wrote:

 Yes, but the fact still remains, for the exception of drug companies
 passing DNA sequences off as patents,

In the bad old U S of A you can patent your own grandmother (or at least 
someone somewhere thinks you ought be able to).

 the *majority* of patents for 
 inventions are due to the efforts of a lone risk taker putting his
 money, time, and effort on the line trying to invent something.

I've no idea what the figures are but I find that hard to believe, do you 
have any sources to backup that claim?

 And, one *never* could conduct high energy particle physics
 experiments in my own basement and launch interplanetary space probes
 from my own backyard.

Lighten up, it's satire.

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Robert Cummings

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:20 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:26, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages
  only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument.
 
 I really wish you would make up your mind. On the one hand you value 
 individuality and originality (or so you claim) and yet now you dismiss 
 my quote because of it's lack of popularity? All great quotes comes from 
 humble origins, and you yourself said that popularity does not equate to 
 quality.

I didn't dismiss it for lack of popularity, I dismissed it for being
passed off as an adage when it is not. If you had claimed from the onset
of its usage that you made it up then I would have accepted it at face
value.

  I have little faith in your words now. If I
  wanted fallacious reasoning I'd go watch a commercial on the telly.
 
 Your loss, not mine :)

Nothing gained, nothing lost.

  You're not very good at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
 
 In that case could you point out to me where you mistake my pointing out 
 projects' lack of updates equates to a project's lack of popularity.

You attempted to use an Ad Hominem to discredit my argument by
suggesting I was jealous at the lack of popularity of my own project.
I'm sure that's why you quoted the Ad Hominem link but I'm not sure
about your following question since that's not at all related to an Ad
Hominem. But it is related to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

   Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of),
   not popularity.
 
  You implied it.
 
 Where? How? Maybe the English that they taught me at school is subtly 
 different to the English that you learnt.

I'm moving forward with the discussion, not backwards, Please keep up.
I've no reason for the discussion to go into circular mode.

  It doesn't seem like you're exchanging ideas.
 
 That is a suggestion.
 
  I have plenty of ideas, but they would mostly be based on my experience
  writing InterJinn and what I hate about other frameworks I've come
  across, as such I chose to keep quiet rather than pollute his ideology
  with my own and sound like I'm tooting my own horn. I often find myself
  writing responses to people that are based on what I did or do in my
  framework... often I delete them before sending them because I don't
  like how it seems impartial. once in a while it still comes up, but I'm
  not perfect.
 
 The OP was not asking questions on _how_ a framework should behave or 
 _what_ a framework should contain. Rather the question was how to 
 _start_ [writing a] php framwork [sic].

Exactly, so why you gave him an answer that didn't suggest anything
about writing a framework still eludes me.

  Your answer, should it ever be 
 forthcoming, need not pollute his innocent mind with your framework 
 ideals.

Well it would, since I'd almost certainly begin talking about how I
started mine.

  One of the ways to do anything is to just wade in. 
 
 Er, obviously. Can't really argue with that statement. Another true 
 statement is One of the ways to do anything is to study the situation 
 before you wade in. So your point?

Like I said, it's one of the ways. The point is that you're suggestions
push away other options as though your suggestion is the right one. I'm
not going to argue whether yours is right or wrong, only that many
options exist and that anyone who tells you their way is the right way
is probably wrong.

  Who are you to 
  assess the OP's skills and determine that he is unable to make a
  reasonable assessment?
 
 I think you were the one assessing the OP's skills. You stated that 
 evaluating the available frameworks is a staggering task, yet suggest 
 that the OP go ahead and write his own framework. In my life experience, 
 judging is easier than creating. I know a good book when I read one, a 
 good meal when I eat one and a good movie when I see one, however I'm not 
 sure I know how to write a good novel, cook a good meal or make a good 
 movie.

No, you assessed the OP's skills when you assumed that he would be
unable to create a fully-baked framework and should totter off and join
an existing framework. But see how you're trying to circle back again.
This has already been discussed, the archives show it, I'll not answer
it again.

  But going back to your point about narrowing it down, you've
  already jumped to the conclusion that the OP has no clue what he's
  doing and so it follows that he probably wouldn't know how to begin
  narrowing down the candidates since that would require experience.
 
 And yet he is able to put together a kickass framework sometime in the 
 future through flirting with serendipity?

No, I never said the OP would flirt with serendipity, in fact if he
created a kick-ass framework while pursuing that goal then it could not
be serendipity. Now if he discovered something else while pursing the
creation of a

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-19 Thread Robert Cummings

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:20 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Tuesday 19 June 2007 13:47, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  No, it's simple probability.
 
 So it's probability now? Which has the greater probability:
 
 1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and 
 weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what you've 
 learnt

Now, now, let's not pretend that you even nearly suggested that in your
original answer:

It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time.
 Inventing the wheel over and over. Surely out of the
 billions of half-baked to fully-baked frameworks out
 there must be something suitable for everyone. How far 
 would you take it? Write your own PHP, why not write
 your own OS, heck build your own computer while you're
 at it :)

You don't offer anything up. Only that pursing the creation of a
framework is extremely inefficient use of precious time by relating it
to Inventing of the wheel over and over. You go on to suggest that
surely there is something suitable out there already. Then you attempt
to suggest the idiocy of doing so and liken it to attempting to writing
one's own OS.


 2) just jump right in a create a kickass framework
 
 Please note the distinction between possibility and probability.

Please stay on track.

  And many will encounter serendipity along the way regardless of what
  they are looking to achieve.
 
 Now we're bypassing logical argument and relying on serendipity?

The comment about serendipity was a generalized statement that neither
added nor subtracted to the argument about creating a framework from
scratch. Again, please stick with the program.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
::
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting  |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services  |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for   |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily.  |
`'

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


At 2:20 AM +0800 6/20/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:58, tedd wrote:
  the *majority* of patents for

 inventions are due to the efforts of a lone risk taker putting his
 money, time, and effort on the line trying to invent something.


I've no idea what the figures are but I find that hard to believe, do you
have any sources to backup that claim?


Try reading. The publications are plenty. And, don't ask me for 
references, I'm not doing your homework. I made the claim, now you 
prove me wrong, if you can. Perhaps you'll learn something in the 
process.


Just for grins, why don't you list ten basic patients that spawned 
new technologies, which were produced by large corporations.


I think you're going to have a hard time wading through all the small 
inventors, who spawned giant industries, to find something that a 
large corporation did that was worthwhile.


And, don't look to government for anything worthwhile either 
(chuckle). Their grant process is a joke for providing funds to small 
developers -- you should try it sometime.


Large organizations (corporate or government) are guided by 
collective minds without imagination. Good ideas are diluted to the 
least common denominator of understanding. Like I said before, the 
brightest ideas have to pass through the dimmest minds to be 
implemented. If you drown imagination in a quagmire of countless 
levels of CYA management, then you'll never produce anything 
worthwhile.


The lone individual is the true source of inspiration and imagination 
and his freedom to act upon his idea is directly proportional to the 
likelihood of it's success.


That fact is very obvious to those of us who have experienced it -- 
sad that you haven't.




  And, one *never* could conduct high energy particle physics

 experiments in my own basement and launch interplanetary space probes
 from my own backyard.


Lighten up, it's satire.


Don't get your panties in a knot. I didn't see anything funny, so 
don't give up your day job.


Cheers,

tedd

--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


At 4:05 PM +0200 6/19/07, Jochem Maas wrote:

Robert Cummings wrote:

 Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
 rules and theories.


Third.

not that my complete lack of knowledge theory and complete lack of respect
for rules has come to any kind of fruition :-P

PS - the troll seems to been subdued?


That's only because he released the Kracken (AKA Robert) upon 
himself. Maybe next time, he'll know who not to pick a fight with. 
:-)


Cheers,

tedd

--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:

  Good reasons to write your own:

It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel
over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked
frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How far
would you take it? Write your own PHP, why not write your own OS, heck
build your own computer while you're at it :)

--
Crayon



What about the wasted time in searching through billions of 
half-baked to fully-baked

frameworks to find one that works for you? That's really a waste of time.

Additionally, you said:


heck build your own computer while you're at it :)


Yeah, like this world need another Apple.  :-)

Cheers,

tedd

--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:

 Typo... *yawn*. 

Please lookup the real meaning of typo .

 You knew what was intended.

Of course. I'm not a computer and can make judgements based on context and 
experience. I only brought it up because you seem to delight in 
grammatical correctness (whatever that is).

 Don't confuse pursuit of happiness and personal satisfaction as hubris.

As the saying goes, there's a fine line between personal satisfaction and 
egotism.

 They are quite different and you can't glean hubris simply from reading
 that someone wants to write their own framework. You are jumping to
 conclusions.

Of course I'm jumping to conclusions - what I'm hoping is that they are 
informed ones. One cannot include every bit of background information 
into a mailing list question so the respondents will have to make 
assumptions.

 I have no problems with the philosophy of free software, but I do have
 issues when someone suggests that we should all follow, like sheep to
 the slaughter, a particular worldview. 

Being different just because, is not very constructive nor cool - it may 
seem so when you're a teenybopper but I'm sure you've outgrown that stage 
by now. And just because more than 1 person share the same viewpoint or 
common cause does not automagically change them into sheep. Before you go 
jumping into conclusions - I'm not against people being different if 
their justification for being different is anything other than just 
because.

 What you _would_ like and what 
 you will get is entirely up to individual in question.

That's why I didn't use I insist.

 You presume the use of SourceForge to host such a project. 

Well I suppose I could have wrote Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected 
Sourceforge/Freshmeat/Savannah/BerliOS/etc Project, but I was relying on 
the readers' powers of inference to fill in the blanks.

 Popularity hardly constitutes a measurement of quality.

Again you're jumping to conclusions I never mentioned popularity. However 
when a project has not seen any updates for years and is still marked 
as in the planning stages then I _would_ jump to conclusions and assume 
it has been neglected/abandoned/forgotten/etc.

 ...they are in no way obligated to do so. If their ideas are bright
 enough then chances are they will attract their own following. 

Just because I may or may not be ranting against something, I'm not 
foolish to think that my rantings will obligate anyone to do anything.

 Maybe so, but much science and many breakthroughs are still done by the
 lone inventory/researcher.

Particularly in the field of astronomy where amateurs are still able to 
contribute greatly. However gone are the days when I could conduct high 
energy particle physics experiments in my own basement and launch 
interplanetary space probes from my own backyard.

 You cannot discount the merit of one 
 person's contribution because you think they should have another work
 style/ethic.

  Now going back to the OP:
 
  ...can some body help me, how to start php framwork for large
  site?, in the absence of any other cues, this question gives me the
  impression that the questioner is completely clueless (sorry if it
  offends you OP), to which the only sensible response is to use a
  variety of existing frameworks until you no longer need to ask the
  question.

 Actually from the OP's statement I see that he wants clues on how to
 start a FRAMEWORK, not clues on how to start a PROJECT. If he wanted
 you to infer another intent he probably would have used another set of
 words. And if he did mean PROJECT instead of FRAMEWORK then he should
 have stated so since given no other context we can only know what he
 has written... all else is conjecture. It's possible I missed something
 though, perhaps invisible font text *uhuh uhuh*, and there really is
 the word project in the OP's post. I'd appreciate you pointing it out
 to me.

Please point out to me where in the above paragraph (ie starting from the 
line Now going back to the OP:) do I mention PROJECT. What kind of nit 
are you trying to pick?

And in other news:

1. gain experience from doing [your own framework]

I would wager that a clueless newbie would learn faster and more about 
frameworks by _using_ and _studying_ other mature frameworks. Because, to 
re-iterate and paraphrase what I said earlier, the very fact that the OP 
had to ask how to start my own framework means that the OP really 
hadn't thought things through and did not do any feasibility studies etc. 
In any case a mailing list is not the best place to answer such an open 
ended question, especially if the best contributions that *you* can come 
up with is 

yes, it's fun to make your own framework

and

 Yep, fly like a chicken.


-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 00:36, tedd wrote:

 What about the wasted time in searching through billions of
 half-baked to fully-baked
 frameworks to find one that works for you? That's really a waste of
 time.

Well search through the fully-baked frameworks only, and don't create 
another half-baked one.

And are you seriously suggesting that you can create a fairly decent 
framework from scratch in less time than it takes to evaluate what's out 
there?

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-18 Thread Nathan Nobbe


discouraging new framework development is like telling the people of the
world never to develop a new flavor of linux.
we all know its a massive undertaking, but there is merit and purpose in it
nonetheless.
and you never know a new one could just become the best one.

-nathan

On 6/18/07, Crayon Shin Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Tuesday 19 June 2007 00:36, tedd wrote:

 What about the wasted time in searching through billions of
 half-baked to fully-baked
 frameworks to find one that works for you? That's really a waste of
 time.

Well search through the fully-baked frameworks only, and don't create
another half-baked one.

And are you seriously suggesting that you can create a fairly decent
framework from scratch in less time than it takes to evaluate what's out
there?

--
Crayon

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 01:39 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  Typo... *yawn*. 
 
 Please lookup the real meaning of typo .

From Webster's: an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset material

I misspelled your as you're. Are you suggesting I used you're because
I don't know the difference? Sorry to disappoint, I often type you're
instead of your and your instead of you're as I'm typing quickly
and not really spending enough time consciously telling my brain which
to send to my fingers.

  You knew what was intended.
 
 Of course. I'm not a computer and can make judgements based on context and 
 experience. I only brought it up because you seem to delight in 
 grammatical correctness (whatever that is).

I delight as is find amusing at times for fun. Your post lacked the
obligatory smiley to indicate humour ;)

  Don't confuse pursuit of happiness and personal satisfaction as hubris.
 
 As the saying goes, there's a fine line between personal satisfaction and 
 egotism.

I put that exact phrase (double quoted of course) into Google and turned
up the following:

Your search - there's a fine line between personal satisfaction
and egotism - did not match any documents.

I'm going to guess you just made it up.

  They are quite different and you can't glean hubris simply from reading
  that someone wants to write their own framework. You are jumping to
  conclusions.
 
 Of course I'm jumping to conclusions - what I'm hoping is that they are 
 informed ones. One cannot include every bit of background information 
 into a mailing list question so the respondents will have to make 
 assumptions.

Jumping to conclusions attempts to bypass logical argument and so rests
on a weak foundation.

  I have no problems with the philosophy of free software, but I do have
  issues when someone suggests that we should all follow, like sheep to
  the slaughter, a particular worldview. 
 
 Being different just because, is not very constructive nor cool - it may 
 seem so when you're a teenybopper but I'm sure you've outgrown that stage 
 by now. And just because more than 1 person share the same viewpoint or 
 common cause does not automagically change them into sheep. Before you go 
 jumping into conclusions - I'm not against people being different if 
 their justification for being different is anything other than just 
 because.

Actually, I was suggesting giving thought to any particular worldview
before jumping on the bandwagon. I wasn't suggesting being different for
the sake of being different. It is important to make informed decisions.

  What you _would_ like and what 
  you will get is entirely up to individual in question.
 
 That's why I didn't use I insist.

No, but you asserted your opinion with disregard for personal choice by
claiming hubris motivates the pursuit of such goals.

  You presume the use of SourceForge to host such a project. 
 
 Well I suppose I could have wrote Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected 
 Sourceforge/Freshmeat/Savannah/BerliOS/etc Project, but I was relying on 
 the readers' powers of inference to fill in the blanks.

As I did and clearly stated below my comment about SourceForge :)

  Popularity hardly constitutes a measurement of quality.
 
 Again you're jumping to conclusions I never mentioned popularity. However 
 when a project has not seen any updates for years and is still marked 
 as in the planning stages then I _would_ jump to conclusions and assume 
 it has been neglected/abandoned/forgotten/etc.

I know for fact that popularity doesn't constitute quality - there's no
jumping to conclusion there.

  ...they are in no way obligated to do so. If their ideas are bright
  enough then chances are they will attract their own following. 
 
 Just because I may or may not be ranting against something, I'm not 
 foolish to think that my rantings will obligate anyone to do anything.

It's good that you understand that.

  Maybe so, but much science and many breakthroughs are still done by the
  lone inventory/researcher.
 
 Particularly in the field of astronomy where amateurs are still able to 
 contribute greatly. However gone are the days when I could conduct high 
 energy particle physics experiments in my own basement and launch 
 interplanetary space probes from my own backyard.

I guess you mean science like this:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/radioactive-boy-scout

The only one placing limits on what you can do is... dun dun dun... YOU!
Well maybe the government also, but that's only until you get caught.

  You cannot discount the merit of one 
  person's contribution because you think they should have another work
  style/ethic.
 
   Now going back to the OP:
  
   ...can some body help me, how to start php framwork for large
   site?, in the absence of any other cues, this question gives me the
   impression that the questioner is completely clueless (sorry if it
   offends you OP), to which the only

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:18, Robert Cummings wrote:

 I put that exact phrase (double quoted of course) into Google and
 turned up the following:

 Your search - there's a fine line between personal satisfaction
 and egotism - did not match any documents.

 I'm going to guess you just made it up.

Glad you did some research. As a matter of fact I did made it up just now. 
Are you disputing that the saying is not widely used, or that it has no 
truth in it?

And just for fun here's another I just made up (I've no idea what Google 
has to say on this):

There's a fine line between personal satisfaction and personal 
gratification

 Jumping to conclusions attempts to bypass logical argument and so rests
 on a weak foundation.

Jumping to conclusions in the literal sense (as opposed to it's negative 
connotation) means making a judgement based on limited facts. As long as 
said conclusion does not fly in the face of the known facts then where is 
the bypassing of logical argument? However I grant you that a judgement 
without all the facts is based on weak foundations. But you can't expect 
me to ask the OP to submit a psychological assessment and attestations of 
personal character from ministers/priests/preachers/mullahs of 3 major 
faiths, before I can ascertain what his/her motives are for asking a 
question.

 Actually, I was suggesting giving thought to any particular worldview
 before jumping on the bandwagon. I wasn't suggesting being different
 for the sake of being different. It is important to make informed
 decisions.

Thank you.

  Again you're jumping to conclusions I never mentioned popularity.
  However when a project has not seen any updates for years and is
  still marked as in the planning stages then I _would_ jump to
  conclusions and assume it has been neglected/abandoned/forgotten/etc.

 I know for fact that popularity doesn't constitute quality - there's no
 jumping to conclusion there.

Gordon bennett, why are you so fixated on popularity, I mentioned at all 
in my posts. Maybe it's a Freudian [insert appropriate terminology here] 
because your framework is not as popular as you think it ought to be and 
so you're being defensive? In that case you're suffering from an 
inferiority complex.

Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of), not 
popularity.

 The only one placing limits on what you can do is... dun dun dun...
 YOU! Well maybe the government also, but that's only until you get
 caught.

To an extent. But a lot of money certainly helps. Unless you're limiting 
your fields of study to theoretical mathematics/physics.

   You cannot discount the merit of one
   person's contribution because you think they should have another
   work style/ethic.

On the contrary I greatly appreciate all the wonderful software that 
one-person bands all over the world has contributed to the public 
domain/free/open source space.

 Exactly, and where does it say that he wants to join an existing
 project?

Nowhere. We're all here to exchange ideas, information, suggestions and 
new angles on (mis)preconceptions (at least I hope most of us are), and 
maybe a flame or 2. So just because the OP did not explicitly state that 
he wanted to join an existing project, it does not mean that he would 
not join an existing project or make use of an existing project under 
any circumstances. Given good enough reasons he could be persuaded one 
way or another.

 Maybe he was about to think things through and just wanted a bump in
 the right direction... the right direction being how to start my own
 framework 

And do you have any pearls of wisdom to start this young novice on the 
road to enlightenment? Given that you have apparently built your own 
framework I am frankly disappointed that you have nothing better to 
contribute than to reply to my mindless drivel. And a :) for good 
measure.

 and not how to join someone else's project. 

And as that is the best advice given the circumstances that is what I 
suggest.

 Ahh, you discount the merit of having fun doing things like this. Many
 great inventions have seen the light of day just because someone was
 having fun doing them.

I am not discounting that merit. But I've a feeling that the OP is not 
doing his large site for fun, but what do I know - I'm always jumping 
into conclusions.

 What constitutes a fully-baked framework? Please indicate some valid
 measure of fully-baked versus half-baked. Your quantitative methods
 of analysis will be appreciated I'm sure. And remember, popularity
 isn't necessarily a measure of quality and so can't be used solely to
 indicate fully-baked... maybe fully-baking, but certainly not
 fully-baked.

Frankly the OP cannot make a reasonable assessment as to how much baked 
any particular framework is then it is my sincere belief that he is in 
even less of a position to create new framework. Personally, how much 
baked a framework is has got to at least take into account whether it has

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:04, Nathan Nobbe wrote:

 discouraging new framework development is like telling the people of
 the world never to develop a new flavor of linux.

There are no new flavours of linux. You're probably mixing it up with 
linux distributions of which there are many. Most of which are, whilst 
not exactly useless, have limited appeal. Yes they are fun and I love 
trying them out. I also make customised livecds for my own personal use. 
But the vast majority of these linux distros are based on distro A, 
which is based on distro B, which is based on distro C, ..., which is 
based on distro Z, which is based on either Debian, Redhat, Slackware 
or Suse. However for real work I would only use a major distro where I 
can expect timely updates and security fixes.

 we all know its a massive undertaking, but there is merit and purpose
 in it nonetheless.

And just what might the merit and purpose be? We can probably conclude 
that the purpose is to facilitate the creation of a large site, but 
the OP never said what/whether there is any merit. But the creation of 
a large site does not imply that there needs to be a new framework, so 
the purpose is not clear.

 and you never know a new one could just become the best one.

Look, if the OP has what it takes to build the best framework he would 
have just gone ahead and did it instead asking. That is not to say that 
in future when he has more experience he could not go on to build a 
kickass framework.

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


At 1:48 AM +0800 6/19/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 00:36, tedd wrote:


 What about the wasted time in searching through billions of
 half-baked to fully-baked
 frameworks to find one that works for you? That's really a waste of
 time.


Well search through the fully-baked frameworks only, and don't create
another half-baked one.

And are you seriously suggesting that you can create a fairly decent
framework from scratch in less time than it takes to evaluate what's out
there?


For me? Absolutely! I haven't failed myself yet.

But, then again, I don't work on important stuff. I'm just a simple 
key puncher with satisfied customers.


Cheers,

tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


At 2:18 PM -0400 6/18/07, Robert Cummings wrote:

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 01:39 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
  On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:


-snip-

Looks like someone released the Kraken.  :-)

Cheers,

tedd

--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site


At 1:39 AM +0800 6/19/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:

On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:
  Maybe so, but much science and many breakthroughs are still done by the
  lone inventory/researcher.

Particularly in the field of astronomy where amateurs are still able to
contribute greatly. However gone are the days when I could conduct high
energy particle physics experiments in my own basement and launch
interplanetary space probes from my own backyard.


Yes, but the fact still remains, for the exception of drug companies 
passing DNA sequences off as patents, the *majority* of patents for 
inventions are due to the efforts of a lone risk taker putting his 
money, time, and effort on the line trying to invent something.


And, one *never* could conduct high energy particle physics 
experiments in my own basement and launch interplanetary space probes 
from my own backyard.


Cheers,

tedd

--
---
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-18 Thread Nathan Nobbe


On 6/18/07, Crayon Shin Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:04, Nathan Nobbe wrote:

 discouraging new framework development is like telling the people of
 the world never to develop a new flavor of linux.

There are no new flavours of linux. You're probably mixing it up with
linux distributions of which there are many.

it seems to me most people use the terms flavor and distribution
interchangeably when referring to linux.

Most of which are, whilst

not exactly useless, have limited appeal. Yes they are fun and I love
trying them out. I also make customised livecds for my own personal use.
But the vast majority of these linux distros are based on distro A,
which is based on distro B, which is based on distro C, ..., which is
based on distro Z, which is based on either Debian, Redhat, Slackware
or Suse. However for real work I would only use a major distro where I
can expect timely updates and security fixes.

although gentoo linux [the only os i run] is designed on the same
basic concept of freeBSD it is entirely unique; basically a freeBSD
rewrite w/ the linux kernel; o, it can run w/ the freeBSD kernel too.
in effect a completely new breed of os was born; and i didnt catch
that one on your list; probly because it is essentially distro Z, so
to speak.


 we all know its a massive undertaking, but there is merit and purpose
 in it nonetheless.

And just what might the merit and purpose be? We can probably conclude
that the purpose is to facilitate the creation of a large site, but
the OP never said what/whether there is any merit. But the creation of
a large site does not imply that there needs to be a new framework, so
the purpose is not clear.


i suppose i began to think in general terms rather than the context of
this thread.


 and you never know a new one could just become the best one.

Look, if the OP has what it takes to build the best framework he would
have just gone ahead and did it instead asking. That is not to say that
in future when he has more experience he could not go on to build a
kickass framework.


agreed

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 05:31 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:18, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  I put that exact phrase (double quoted of course) into Google and
  turned up the following:
 
  Your search - there's a fine line between personal satisfaction
  and egotism - did not match any documents.
 
  I'm going to guess you just made it up.
 
 Glad you did some research. As a matter of fact I did made it up just now. 
 Are you disputing that the saying is not widely used, or that it has no 
 truth in it?

Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages
only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument.

 And just for fun here's another I just made up (I've no idea what Google 
 has to say on this):
 
 There's a fine line between personal satisfaction and personal 
 gratification

I won't bother looking. I have little faith in your words now. If I
wanted fallacious reasoning I'd go watch a commercial on the telly.

  Jumping to conclusions attempts to bypass logical argument and so rests
  on a weak foundation.
 
 Jumping to conclusions in the literal sense (as opposed to it's negative 
 connotation) means making a judgement based on limited facts. As long as 
 said conclusion does not fly in the face of the known facts then where is 
 the bypassing of logical argument? However I grant you that a judgement 
 without all the facts is based on weak foundations. But you can't expect 
 me to ask the OP to submit a psychological assessment and attestations of 
 personal character from ministers/priests/preachers/mullahs of 3 major 
 faiths, before I can ascertain what his/her motives are for asking a 
 question.

You could ask the OP for more information rather than jump to
conclusions. Sort of moot now though since the OP re-iterated that he
was indeed seeking information on how to start a framework. This should
have been the logical conclusion to which one would jump given that the
only fact that was known was that the OP wanted guidance on how to start
a framework. All else you came up with was flight of fancy.

  Actually, I was suggesting giving thought to any particular worldview
  before jumping on the bandwagon. I wasn't suggesting being different
  for the sake of being different. It is important to make informed
  decisions.
 
 Thank you.

You're welcome.

   Again you're jumping to conclusions I never mentioned popularity.
   However when a project has not seen any updates for years and is
   still marked as in the planning stages then I _would_ jump to
   conclusions and assume it has been neglected/abandoned/forgotten/etc.
 
  I know for fact that popularity doesn't constitute quality - there's no
  jumping to conclusion there.
 
 Gordon bennett, why are you so fixated on popularity, I mentioned at all 
 in my posts. Maybe it's a Freudian [insert appropriate terminology here] 
 because your framework is not as popular as you think it ought to be and 
 so you're being defensive? In that case you're suffering from an 
 inferiority complex.

You're not very good at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
At any rate, if you jump on the site, go to the about section and read
the history, you'll see I wrote my framework for my MUD. So I fall into
the just for fun crowd. But anyways, nowadays I use my framework
pretty much every single day I work and I make good money doing so. If I
were being defensive I'd have probably tried telling the OP to use my
framework. I stopped evangelizing it a couple of years ago... I don't
care if people use it or not *lol*.

 Read what I wrote above, I'm talking about UPDATES (or the lack of), not 
 popularity.

You implied it.

  The only one placing limits on what you can do is... dun dun dun...
  YOU! Well maybe the government also, but that's only until you get
  caught.
 
 To an extent. But a lot of money certainly helps. Unless you're limiting 
 your fields of study to theoretical mathematics/physics.

Certainly helps some. Others get by fine without a lot of money.

You cannot discount the merit of one
person's contribution because you think they should have another
work style/ethic.
 
 On the contrary I greatly appreciate all the wonderful software that 
 one-person bands all over the world has contributed to the public 

You mean have contributed not has contributed *smirk*.

 domain/free/open source space.
 
  Exactly, and where does it say that he wants to join an existing
  project?
 
 Nowhere. We're all here to exchange ideas, information, suggestions and 
 new angles on (mis)preconceptions (at least I hope most of us are), and 
 maybe a flame or 2. So just because the OP did not explicitly state that 
 he wanted to join an existing project, it does not mean that he would 
 not join an existing project or make use of an existing project under 
 any circumstances. Given good enough reasons he could be persuaded one 
 way or another.

That would be an acceptable point

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 21:12 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
 On 6/18/07, Crayon Shin Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   and you never know a new one could just become the best one.
 
  Look, if the OP has what it takes to build the best framework he would
  have just gone ahead and did it instead asking. That is not to say that
  in future when he has more experience he could not go on to build a
  kickass framework.
 

 agreed

Ah but it is quite possible that the OP will go ahead and try to build a
framework, he may fail miserably, all the while learning from his
mistakes. Then he may try again and subsequently build a kickass
framework. Since not all paths lead to the same conclusion it is just as
possible that if he doesn't go down this path that he will never create
a kickass framework no matter how many frameworks he studies.

Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
rules and theories.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
::
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting  |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services  |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for   |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily.  |
`'

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:12, Nathan Nobbe wrote:

 it seems to me most people use the terms flavor and distribution
 interchangeably when referring to linux.

Yeah and most people forget that linux (the kernel) is only a tiny part of 
a linux distribution.

 although gentoo linux [the only os i run] is designed on the same
 basic concept of freeBSD it is entirely unique; basically a freeBSD
 rewrite w/ the linux kernel; o, it can run w/ the freeBSD kernel too.
 in effect a completely new breed of os was born; and i didnt catch
 that one on your list; probly because it is essentially distro Z, so
 to speak.

I use gentoo too. I didn't mention it because it has relatively few 
derivatives.

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:35, Robert Cummings wrote:

 Ah but it is quite possible that the OP will go ahead and try to build
 a framework, he may fail miserably, all the while learning from his
 mistakes. Then he may try again and subsequently build a kickass
 framework. 

In the pragmatic world where you're working on a project, for a living, to 
a time schedule, then learning from other people's mistakes is less time 
consuming than creating your own mistakes, recognise that they are 
mistakes and then learn from them.

Of course if you invoke your it's only for fun defence then pragmatism 
wouldn't come into it and whatever you do or don't do doesn't really 
matter.

 Since not all paths lead to the same conclusion it is just 
 as possible that if he doesn't go down this path that he will never
 create a kickass framework no matter how many frameworks he studies.

Now you're trudging into the realms of philosophy, crystal ball gazing and 
groundless speculation.

 Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
 rules and theories.

I'm sure most people on the list aren't looking to make revolutionary 
advances in php programming. Most are simply looking for practical 
answers to practical questions.

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:41 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:35, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  Ah but it is quite possible that the OP will go ahead and try to build
  a framework, he may fail miserably, all the while learning from his
  mistakes. Then he may try again and subsequently build a kickass
  framework. 
 
 In the pragmatic world where you're working on a project, for a living, to 
 a time schedule, then learning from other people's mistakes is less time 
 consuming than creating your own mistakes, recognise that they are 
 mistakes and then learn from them.
 
 Of course if you invoke your it's only for fun defence then pragmatism 
 wouldn't come into it and whatever you do or don't do doesn't really 
 matter.

I wouldn't call it a defence. It's a point of view.

  Since not all paths lead to the same conclusion it is just 
  as possible that if he doesn't go down this path that he will never
  create a kickass framework no matter how many frameworks he studies.
 
 Now you're trudging into the realms of philosophy, crystal ball gazing and 
 groundless speculation.

No, it's simple probability.

  Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
  rules and theories.
 
 I'm sure most people on the list aren't looking to make revolutionary 
 advances in php programming. Most are simply looking for practical 
 answers to practical questions.

And many will encounter serendipity along the way regardless of what
they are looking to achieve.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
::
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting  |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services  |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for   |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily.  |
`'

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:04 -0400, itoctopus wrote:
 cakephp is not bad, why write your own?

Why not write your own?

Good reasons to write your own:

1. gain experience from doing
2. a solution that exactly fits your needs
3. 100% license control
4. it's fun

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
::
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting  |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services  |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for   |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily.  |
`'

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-17 Thread Crayon Shin Chan

On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:

 Good reasons to write your own:

It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel 
over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked 
frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How far 
would you take it? Write your own PHP, why not write your own OS, heck 
build your own computer while you're at it :)

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-17 Thread Brian Seymour

Depends, is time a factor. If not, why not write your own framework.

Brian Seymour
AeroCoreProductions
http://www.aerocore.net/
-Original Message-
From: Crayon Shin Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:53 PM
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:

 Good reasons to write your own:

It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel 
over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked 
frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How far 
would you take it? Write your own PHP, why not write your own OS, heck 
build your own computer while you're at it :)

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:52 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  Good reasons to write your own:
 
 It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel 
 over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked 
 frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How far 
 would you take it?

As far as I want.

  Write your own PHP

I've written my own scripting language. it's not PHP but it suited my
needs at the time:

http://www.wocmud.org/Carnage/blobbieScript/features.phtml

 why not write your own OS, heck

Maybe some day, don't have time right now for that partcular bit of side
fun.

 build your own computer while you're at it :)

Why not? You're argument is invalid. It suggests that since solutions
already exist to a problem that we should lie down and leave things as
they are. Progress, and I'm not suggesting my personal projects have
caused much progress, progress can only be achieved by revisiting what
exists and either attempting to improve upon them, or attempting to
create a new approaches.

The wheel as we know it today wouldn't exist in the thousands of forms
that it does if not for re-invention. Should we have left it at the
stone wheel? The wooden wheel? The metal wheel? The solid wheel? The
spoked wheel? The rubber coated circumference wheel? The tired wheel?
The inflatable wheel? Tell me at which point attempts at advancement
should have been abandoned because we have enough wheels? In fact,
I'll wager that advancements to the wheel continue.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
::
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting  |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services  |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for   |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily.  |
`'

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-17 Thread Crayon Shin Chan

On Monday 18 June 2007 02:12, Robert Cummings wrote:

 Why not? You're argument is invalid.

You're == You are, which makes the above invalid, or at least 
nonsensical.

 It suggests that since solutions 
 already exist to a problem that we should lie down and leave things as
 they are. Progress, and I'm not suggesting my personal projects have
 caused much progress, progress can only be achieved by revisiting what
 exists and either attempting to improve upon them, or attempting to
 create a new approaches.

I didn't say anything to that effect. What I _would_ like to see is that 
people stuffed their hubris and get into the spirit of free software. 
Instead of starting Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected Sourceforge 
Project people should shop around and find a project which most closely 
matches their vision and start contributing their bright ideas to it.

Of course history is full of lone inventors pottering about in their spare 
time coming up with earth-shattering discoveries. But the fact is that 
today, most science and breakthroughs are done by teams working 
collaboratively.

Now going back to the OP:

...can some body help me, how to start php framwork for large site?, in 
the absence of any other cues, this question gives me the impression that 
the questioner is completely clueless (sorry if it offends you OP), to 
which the only sensible response is to use a variety of existing 
frameworks until you no longer need to ask the question.

-- 
Crayon

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 02:55 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
 On Monday 18 June 2007 02:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
 
  Why not? You're argument is invalid.
 
 You're == You are, which makes the above invalid, or at least 
 nonsensical.

Typo... *yawn*. You knew what was intended. Feel free to comment on the
typo, but calling the statement nonsensical when the meaning was easy to
ascertain suggests you're either stupid or trolling. I'll presume the
latter, but feel free to correct me if it's the former.

  It suggests that since solutions 
  already exist to a problem that we should lie down and leave things as
  they are. Progress, and I'm not suggesting my personal projects have
  caused much progress, progress can only be achieved by revisiting what
  exists and either attempting to improve upon them, or attempting to
  create a new approaches.
 
 I didn't say anything to that effect.

You implied it.

  What I _would_ like to see is that 
 people stuffed their hubris

Don't confuse pursuit of happiness and personal satisfaction as hubris.
They are quite different and you can't glean hubris simply from reading
that someone wants to write their own framework. You are jumping to
conclusions.

  and get into the spirit of free software. 

I have no problems with the philosophy of free software, but I do have
issues when someone suggests that we should all follow, like sheep to
the slaughter, a particular worldview. What you _would_ like and what
you will get is entirely up to individual in question.

 Instead of starting Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected Sourceforge 
 Project

You presume the use of SourceForge to host such a project. Granted, you
probably meant Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected Project, but that
doesn't excuse you from once again presuming it will be neglected. A
project used by *1* person, no matter how useless YOU think it is, is
not neglected by that person. Popularity hardly constitutes a
measurement of quality.

  people should shop around and find a project which most closely 
 matches their vision and start contributing their bright ideas to it.

People can and do shop around when they want to. This should not stop
anyone who wants to create their own project from doing so. People have
free will, biases, opinions, ideas, goals and as such can pursue
fulfilment as they please. While it can be nice that they might
contribute their bright ideas to some other project, they are in no way
obligated to do so. If their ideas are bright enough then chances are
they will attract their own following.

 Of course history is full of lone inventors pottering about in their spare 
 time coming up with earth-shattering discoveries. But the fact is that 
 today, most science and breakthroughs are done by teams working 
 collaboratively.

Maybe so, but much science and many breakthroughs are still done by the
lone inventory/researcher. You cannot discount the merit of one person's
contribution because you think they should have another work
style/ethic.

 Now going back to the OP:
 
 ...can some body help me, how to start php framwork for large site?, in 
 the absence of any other cues, this question gives me the impression that 
 the questioner is completely clueless (sorry if it offends you OP), to 
 which the only sensible response is to use a variety of existing 
 frameworks until you no longer need to ask the question.

Actually from the OP's statement I see that he wants clues on how to
start a FRAMEWORK, not clues on how to start a PROJECT. If he wanted you
to infer another intent he probably would have used another set of
words. And if he did mean PROJECT instead of FRAMEWORK then he should
have stated so since given no other context we can only know what he has
written... all else is conjecture. It's possible I missed something
though, perhaps invisible font text *uhuh uhuh*, and there really is the
word project in the OP's post. I'd appreciate you pointing it out to
me.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
..
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
::
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting  |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services  |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for   |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily.  |
`'

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-17 Thread Nathan Nobbe

the best part about re-inventing the wheel is,
once youve re-invented it; its yours!

time is precious yes; but what happens when you get along using some lib and
you cant get it to do what you want?
you start writing weak code because you never learned how to write good code
in the first place, or you cant analyze
the code in the library because you dont understand the constructs theyve
used to build the library.
need i say design patterns?

obviously incorporating libraries into your codebase is an excellent way to
leverage working code, that theoretically is
well written.
that being said, i think w/ php, many people are still implementing home
grown solutions for 'frameworks' because there arent, or
isnt a defacto standard for php. eg. if you hear people talk about java,
they will always mumble something about hibernate in a conversation about a
database abstraction layer.
why? its solid, proven, capable, etc., etc.

to the author of the thread; if you want to write your own framework, i
suggest you start
studyinghttp://books.google.com/books?id=LjJcCnNf92kCdq=head+first+design+patternspg=PP1ots=_84Y3Bg3p-sig=CYInFxFKjrge73xe4zGfWTFNWdoprev=http://www.google.com/search%253Fhl%253Den%2526client%253Dopera%2526rls%253Den%2526hs%253Diu0%2526sa%253DX%2526oi%253Dspell%2526resnum%253D0%2526ct%253Dresult%2526cd%253D1%2526q%253Dhead%252Bfirst%252Bdesign%252Bpatterns%2526spell%253D1sa=Xoi=printct=title:)

-nathan

On 6/17/07, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 02:55 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007 02:12, Robert Cummings wrote:

Why not? You're argument is invalid.

You're == You are, which makes the above invalid, or at least
nonsensical.

Typo... *yawn*. You knew what was intended. Feel free to comment on the
typo, but calling the statement nonsensical when the meaning was easy to
ascertain suggests you're either stupid or trolling. I'll presume the
latter, but feel free to correct me if it's the former.

It suggests that since solutions
already exist to a problem that we should lie down and leave things as
they are. Progress, and I'm not suggesting my personal projects have
caused much progress, progress can only be achieved by revisiting what
exists and either attempting to improve upon them, or attempting to
create a new approaches.

I didn't say anything to that effect.

You implied it.

What I _would_ like to see is that
people stuffed their hubris

Don't confuse pursuit of happiness and personal satisfaction as hubris.
They are quite different and you can't glean hubris simply from reading
that someone wants to write their own framework. You are jumping to
conclusions.

and get into the spirit of free software.

I have no problems with the philosophy of free software, but I do have
issues when someone suggests that we should all follow, like sheep to
the slaughter, a particular worldview. What you _would_ like and what
you will get is entirely up to individual in question.

Instead of starting Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected Sourceforge
Project

You presume the use of SourceForge to host such a project. Granted, you
probably meant Yet Another Soon To Be Neglected Project, but that
doesn't excuse you from once again presuming it will be neglected. A
project used by *1* person, no matter how useless YOU think it is, is
not neglected by that person. Popularity hardly constitutes a
measurement of quality.

people should shop around and find a project which most closely
matches their vision and start contributing their bright ideas to it.

People can and do shop around when they want to. This should not stop
anyone who wants to create their own project from doing so. People have
free will, biases, opinions, ideas, goals and as such can pursue
fulfilment as they please. While it can be nice that they might
contribute their bright ideas to some other project, they are in no way
obligated to do so. If their ideas are bright enough then chances are
they will attract their own following.

Of course history is full of lone inventors pottering about in their
spare
time coming up with earth-shattering discoveries. But the fact is that
today, most science and breakthroughs are done by teams working
collaboratively.

Maybe so, but much science and many breakthroughs are still done by the
lone inventory/researcher. You cannot discount the merit of one person's
contribution because you think they should have another work
style/ethic.

Now going back to the OP:

...can some body help me, how to start php framwork for large site?,
in
the absence of any other cues, this question gives me the impression
that
the questioner is completely clueless (sorry if it offends you OP), to
which the only sensible response is to use a variety of existing
frameworks until you no longer need to ask the question.

Actually from the OP's statement I see that he wants clues on how to
start a FRAMEWORK, not clues on how to start a PROJECT. If he wanted

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-17 Thread martins


So,
Much off topic, but ok.
1. drupal are ok, but soo slow.. and I don't need CMS. I want to write 
my own.


The main reason I want write my own framework / project is performance.
Now I think to use postgresql, memcached, PDO, apc.

Need some help from experienced users! How to get done big project! Ok, 
thanks.


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site

2007-06-17 Thread Larry Garfield

On Sunday 17 June 2007, martins wrote:
 So,
 Much off topic, but ok.
 1. drupal are ok, but soo slow.. and I don't need CMS. I want to write
 my own.

 The main reason I want write my own framework / project is performance.
 Now I think to use postgresql, memcached, PDO, apc.

Three of those are independent of the framework per se.  APC can be used with 
any serious PHP project.  memcached can be supported by many.  

And Drupal can support APC and memcached and postgresql just fine, 
actually. :-)  That makes it fly.  

 Need some help from experienced users! How to get done big project! Ok,
 thanks.

For what definition of big?  If you're developing something that actually 
needs APC and memcached, then you're looking at several months of time for 
the framework itself to develop, test, and benchmark for performance if 
you're already skilled and have experience with other similar systems.  If 
you have no prior experience with other systems (Drupal, Cake, Symfony, 
Propel, ezComponents, Zend Framework, whatever) then you're going to be 
coding yourself into oblivion and get nothing done.

I speak from experience. :-)

-- 
Larry Garfield  AIM: LOLG42
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   ICQ: 6817012

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of 
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, 
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to 
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession 
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.  -- Thomas 
Jefferson

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP] Re: php framework, large site