> Does it make sense to load an entire class for a few functions designed to > make writing templates easier?
Isn't that an argument against auto-loading in general? The big frameworks (Drupal, CakePHP, Symfony) are wasteful when it comes to resources. And they are slow. We don't use Symfony because we are we want to be careful about resources, we use Symfony because we want to maximize programmer productivity. If I was concerned about resource use, I probably wouldn't be using Symfony. (If I was really worried about resource use, I probably wouldn't be using PHP.) Given how much Symfony auto-loads, are a few more library classes a big deal? On Sep 7, 1:55 am, Eno <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Jake Barnes wrote: > > So I am puzzled: why are helpers implemented as functions, instead of > > as methods of classes? > > Does it make sense to load an entire class for a few functions designed to > make writing templates easier? > > > The use of functions seems incongruous with the > > stated aims of Symfony. It seems clunky to have such an advanced > > framework that falls back to functions for some things. > > In that case, you may also ask why Ruby on Rails also uses helpers despite > Ruby being a pure OOP language? I think symfony is more pragmatic than > purist. > > -- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
