Before giving my own view into this problem, you you guys list the reasons why you think CakePHP is a cool or productive framework to work with? Just give me 3 reasons, no comparisons with other frameworks
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:24:30 AM UTC+2, Jeremy Burns wrote: > > 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’. > > Perhaps someone can devise some simple benchmarking challenges that the > guardians of the various frameworks can take up themselves and then compare > the actual results, rather than letting a random person do it out of the > box. A competition, if you will. So, for example, write a thousand records > to a database, read them back, perform some function and render them to > screen. Yes, yes, I know there would need to be some element of a level > playing field with server spec and the like, but it could be done. Then > each framework can show it’s own best efforts and - importantly - will have > no excuses about not understanding the framework or setting it up correctly. > > 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 <[email protected]> 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. >> >> Regards >> Reuben 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
