Actually mark_story most of the documentation is really really damn good. I am really not the most advanced coder and I can get around with the docs and API quite well. So maybe it has to do with laziness as well. But as you asked, what I never really understood is how cakes errors and exceptions work and how to build upon them and customize and extend them. Same goes for views but I did not require them as of yet. That aside I really did not find anything "lacking" especially because cake2 is really not too complex. For Cake3 I can see that there should maybe be a more advanced chapter on the ORM (similar to what the advanced workshop offered but with even more depth) because it is really a strong ORM but at the same time it is not as easy as a simple contain and then array traversal in afterfind or recursive 3 or whatnot. But I have to say it again, the docs are quite good and the docs and the tight integration (e.g.a real FRAMEwork and not a bunch of zend libs and java-land-like stuff) were the reason I chose cake1.2 back then.
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 8:56:56 PM UTC+2, mark_story wrote: > > As someone who writes a pile of documentation, what kinds of advanced > things have you found lacking? I've found it challenging to add more > advanced examples as they often end up being very situational and we'll > always have some use case that doesn't have a full example. I'm interested > in what you've found lacking, perhaps there are generic enough examples > that can be added. > > -Mark > > On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 11:42:59 UTC-4, John Sposato wrote: >> >> I think it's interesting that some people say the docs are terrible and >> others list documentation as a reason why it's cool or productive. >> >> If you're build a blog application that will only do simple relationships >> and not a lot of complex things, the documentation is great. However, we >> typically don't do things that simple. We find the documentation lacking >> for more advanced users. And, since we're always pressed for time, >> figuring it out isn't always a viable solution. >> >> If you want people to come to your framework, the #1 thing should be >> documentation. CakePHP 2.x is stable and works well so maybe some effort >> could be redirected into adding to/improving the documentation? >> >> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:28:32 AM UTC-4, José Lorenzo wrote: >>> >>> 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.
