My whole take on frameworks (and languages in general) is the debugging process. In a web application if something does not look right or function correctly am I going to know exactly *where* to look for the problem? In an MVC ideal its pretty simple (even if you look at in GUI terms) ... its ridiculous to spend an entire day tracking down where $_variable is and what it does. They were doing that 10 years ago in C and C++. I like smarter languages and smarter frameworks. If you write one or two lines of code + everything is figured out for you, its pretty powerful stuff to take for granted.
- Jon On Nov 18, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Nate Abele wrote: > Most of the new features I've added to CakePHP have been extracted > from Real Applications(tm). It's also flexible enough to allow you > to modify or replace the framework's functionality at pretty much any > point in the process. The only reason you'd ever want to fork a > framework project is if it is too inflexible, which Cake is not. > > The entire point of having a framework like PHP is so that you > *don't* have to write your applications from scratch every time. Not > only that, but half of the brain-work that goes in to designing your > application is taken out of the equation, because Cake provides you > with the best (for most web applications) design patterns from the > very beginning. > >> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:55:25 -0500 >> From: Paul Houle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [nyphp-talk] microframeworks >> To: NYPHP Talk <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Last week somebody asked what framework he should be use for a >> project. People brought up the usual suspects, such as CakePHP, >> Symfony, Andromeda and the Zend Framework. Yet, I get the feeling >> that more people are talking about frameworks rather than using them; >> the talk-to-action ratio depends on the framework, but I think >> frameworks haven't yet "crossed the chasm" to mass adoption. >> >> The other day I had to get an application started in a hurry. >> It's >> doing something useful at < 700 lines, but I'm considering options >> that >> could grow it out to about 10 times that. It depends on a "core >> library" that's < 500 lines. This library deals with common >> issues in >> string handling, parameter handling, and HTML form generation. >> >> About 10% of the application, or 70 lines, is a microframework >> that's loosely built on Struts. About 20 of those lines are in 2 >> functions which would be generally useful for microframeworks >> (such as >> file_exists_in_include_path()). Like Struts, the microframework >> chooses an "action" based on form parameters: the action then >> chooses a >> "view" -- a "view" is basically a template that a designer can edit >> which can be supplemented by an optional "query" which pulls stuff >> out >> of the database. Like Ruby-on-Rails, the microframework uses >> convention instead of configuration: the dispatcher computes an >> "action >> name" based on query parameters, and uses that to compute a >> filename... It checks that the file exists and executes it with the >> "require method". >> >> The microframework uses no object-oriented techniques. That's >> not >> because I have any antipathy to OO, but because I didn't need it, >> and >> I like writing my actions, queries, and views in a style that >> "feels >> like PHP". >> >> Yes, my microframework is nowhere near as powerful as CakePHP or >> Symfony. Yet, it's more flexible, because I can codesign it >> with my >> application. Because it's so simple, I can easily adapt it to do >> what >> I want. If I decide I really hate it, I can write a new one in an >> hour. I'm an expert on it, because I developed it, and I wouldn't >> have to take on the technical, social and emotional burdens of >> "forking" an open-source codebase if I wanted to make a change in >> direction. >> >> I'm moving towards a vision of web app architecture where we move >> towards shared vocabulary and standardized interfaces. Rather than >> working with a "comprehensive framework" that does everything, I'd >> like >> to have a "framework construction set" that contains a number of >> elements that I can take or leave. >> > > _______________________________________________ > New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List > http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > > NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online > http://www.nyphpcon.com > > Show Your Participation in New York PHP > http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
