My reasons are more practical than technical, but still very relevant: 1. Familiarity 2. Speed to get-go 3. Well maintained/supported
Without deep knowledge of other frameworks it's hard to come up with technical arguments, but I'd love have them in my armoury. - Jeremy On 30 Sep 2014, at 09:28, José Lorenzo <jose....@gmail.com> 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 <reuben.he...@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. >> >> 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 cake-php+unsubscr...@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. > > > -- > 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+unsubscr...@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. -- 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+unsubscr...@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.
