This is so true. I’m a huge fan of Cake but we do feel like the whipping boys sometimes. I recently hired someone into a project and the first thing he tried to do was change the framework for a whole bunch of vague reasons like ‘Laravel is just so much better’.
I haven’t had a ‘job’ for the past six years, but on the odd time that I decide a regular income would be nice I rarely - if ever - see CakePHP as a requirement. It’s always Symfony, Zend, Drupal, Code Ingniter, sometimes Laravel, sometimes ROR and sometimes something else. That’s awkward and I just can’t help wondering if I am swimming against a tide. Perhaps everyone else is right and I am wrong? TBH, I’m not clever enough to be able to explain why Cake is the right choice compared to others; some help there would be cool.
On 30 Sep 2014, at 00:43, Reuben <reuben.helms@gmail.com> wrote:
My apologies, dereuromark, for the incorrect spelling of your handle.
On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 09:40:31 UTC+10, Reuben wrote:The few times that I've seen CakePHP compared to other PHP frameworks is in performance tests, and it never looks pretty. Usually the test is a very simple Hello World test, or an action that reads/writes a bunch of records to the database. Not really real work tests, and no effort to configure the application to make sure it's doing the best that it can (i.e. appropriate cache options, etc).There have been a few articles written on CakePHP and performance, and all the stuff you can do before complaining about the framework itself.Unfortunately, when people are comparing PHP frameworks, they just look for that performance index, and don't take too much notice of the merits of the performance test taken.My perception is that at last check, there might be room for improvement in the event model, but I don't do all the other things that can be done to get better performance out of CakePHP, before going there, so it's never been an issue for me. I also understand that start up times have been improved with CakePHP 3, and the routing configuration required.Of course, CakePHP is more than just performance of the framework. The documentation is great, the community is great and the core development team are very approachable, via groups, irc and github issues. And the code itself, should you need to look at it, is very readable. The only part that makes my brain hurt a little is the event system, especially when trying to work out, when this event is fired, what is listening for it in the CakePHP core.Maybe there could be some articles written about the CakePHP core, to make TheBakery a little more attractive to read. I'm more likely to read CakePHP articles from Mark Story, AD7six or deuromark than peruse the 1 or 2 paragraph articles on TheBakery.
RegardsReuben Helms
On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 07:15:54 UTC+10, Florian Krämer wrote:In the official CakePHP Facebook group Yanuar Nurcahyo asked about opinions on that link http://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-Cakephp-popular-despite- being-one-of-the-earliest-php- framework-to-be-written I'll quote my own comment I've added to that posting:I'm a little shocked about the wrong information people spreading there as well as the amount of false information. Especially the one that got 4 up-votes. Most of the answers there read like FUD or written by people who can't or won't read documentation. Also I really don't get why people always "need" bleeding edge php support. There is no urgent need or do you migrate you app / server to a new php version just because it's cool? The only problem that CakePHP has is an image problem.What I would like to discuss in this thread is reasons and solution to them. Why has CakePHP such a negative perception? The thing that bothers me personally the most is why the *uck do people say it has a bad documentation? Seriously, I don't get it. Can't they find the documentation? Can't they use it? Or is it really just FUD by some <random-framework> fanboys?The "stone age php version" isn't a very valid argument IMHO. Yes, I agree, CakePHP felt behind other frameworks for at least ~2 years and I've missed the namespace support more than one time. But that was really the only language feature I was really missing. Everything else is sugar on top of the cake. I don't know if other people update their servers and apps for fun and if they do the required testing for free for their clients...but well, looks like some guys out there have more a cowboy-coder attitude than a professional one.
Also I don't get why people complain about the architecture of CakePHP, yes it is different, yes it gives you everything out of the box and isn't a package made of 100 loose libs and then glued together. This is IMHO actually an advantage and makes it easy to get started with it. And seriously, how often do you change the ORM stack of <random-framework> in reality? And on top of that, CakePHP 3.0, as far as I can tell, is more decoupled than 2.0 was. For example the face pattern in Laravel is, as far as I've worked with it and understood it, just one way you can use for dependency injection. The face seems to works like a proxy. I might be wrong, I haven't spent much time with it yet. SF2 is using a container object to deal with the dependencies. However, my point here is other frameworks appear to be more fancy and by this attract people who are looking for fancy things, "interesting" design patterns and architecture. Which brings us back to the cowboy-coder attitude. Something doesn't has to be fancy to just work.I know that for example Symfony gets a lot attention and exposure through having virtually one domain per component of their framework and a nice design for these sites and for whatever reason Symfony manages it somehow to get massive funding. Creating all these pages and a fancy design takes time and money. So I don't think doing something similar would be an option for CakePHP. Honestly I have no ideas what could be done to help making CakePHP look better (and stop these silly guys from spreading FUD). I would not mind all their critics at all if they would bring valid and detailed arguments. But everybody complaining about CakePHP is just repeating other peoples FUD about a bad documentation and not exactly mentioning what is wrong with the architecture. Going into a discussion is like going into a fight without a weapon. But well, the problem here is nobody fights these false "arguments". :(I personally don't mind using Symfony2 or Laravel, they're good frameworks as well, but I don't think that CakePHP 3.0 has to hide in any aspect, nor had Cake2 when it was new. But CakePHP has a completely different philosophy than SF2 and Laravel, obviously one that people are not used to.So, has anyone constructive critics about that? Maybe others here don't even think CakePHP has a problem with it's perception?--
Like Us on FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/CakePHP
Find us on Twitter http://twitter.com/CakePHP
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cake-php+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment