Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 00:06 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:17:51AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > > > >magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > > > > > What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML > > > is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) > > > deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. > > > > It's not a fair comparison. It's like saying here's a bucket of water. I > > want you to take it across the road using one of the following methods: > > I wouldn't consider it a truly scientific comparison. The testing method > seems a little odd to me. Nonetheless, the point is makes is clear: PHP > is 70% (more or less) efficient in rendering pages than straight HTML, Let's be perfectly clear here... plain HTML has no dyanmic functionality. > and the "best" frameworks are only about 20% as efficient as straight > PHP. No, that is WRONG. The study shows that the "best" framworks are about 20% as efficient as straight PHP to output "hello world". Don't confuse yourself. Any large enough application will begin to converge with a framework's speed... ESPECIALLY due to to I/O bottlenecks. > We can argue about the exact numbers, No, I don't care about the exact numbers, I care about a proper analysis. > but the results make clear > that for speed HTML > PHP > frameworks. (And really, can you logically > argue that point?) Yes I can. > From this, you don't draw the conclusion to not use > frameworks or PHP. From this, you now know one of the trade-offs in > using PHP and frameworks. And you get some idea of the magnitude of its > impact. Yes, you get a tradeoff chart between frameworks... but any sufficiently developed applicaiton will itself resemble a framework when all is said and done. > (These guys didn't even bother to test HTML with a bunch of Javascript > or complex CSS in it. Might PHP have been faster?) It doesn't matter. We're talking server processing time here. > Is *coding* faster and more efficient with frameworks? Sure. Does the > code execute as fast? No. Not necessarily true. > If execution speed is your priority, then you > either scrap the framework, resort to a caching solution (which some of > the frameworks already have in place, but which the testers didn't > test), or figure something else out (like C?). If execution speed isn't > your priority, then you might look instead at a framework. You have an extremely narrow point of view. > Anyway, the survey is just a tool which lets you know about one of the > trade-offs in web design. I doubt any other method of testing would skew > the results all that much. It's a flawed tool. A tool that provides wrong or biased data is worse than a tool that provides none at all. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 23:54 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:20:16AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > > > > > Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in > > > this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this > > > is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened > > > which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the > > > CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads > > > consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. > > > > Moot point if you're using an accelerator like eAccelerator or APC since > > these cache the data in memory. Similarly, most operating systems cache > > file reads also, so it's probably not as expensive without an > > accelerator as you think either. > > Perhaps, but since much of the C code I've written is on Linux servers > like those used by most of the hosting companies, and since I can't > control whether they do or don't cache pages, my personal experience > (and simple logic) guides me to believe file manipulation is far more > time consuming than simple manipulation of strings, number and arrays. A goo compile cache will take care of that if you tell it not to bother checking for newer source files. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
Hi Daevid, Your included db.inc.php file contains what appears to be a very strict injunction against people on this list making use of it. In particular, these lines: #--- # # Confidential - Property of Symcell Corporation # Do not copy or distribute. # Copyright 2005-2008 Symcell Corporation. All rights reserved. # #--- Any chance you can resend this file without that warning included, if you have the authority to remove it? All the best, M is for Murray On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience with > using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it was so > cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC thing can > be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if you want to > hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them and let them > ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project too! More > wasted time. > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all > people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap you end > up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to deviate at all, > you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just can't. They > seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but honestly, rarely do > the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you want. It might be as > simple as trying to change the look/feel of a button or something and you'll > find out that you can't -- so now you have this website that has this > section that doesn't look like the rest of your site. And if you find a bug, > you have to try to either fix it yourself and then keep those changes > migrated into new updates, or submit it to the developer and hope they > implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have them rejected > for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has been done and > you're using it!) > > I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers and > functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer and > over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) but don't > start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall into the DB > Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB calls (see > attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you almost never do) you > change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like QuickForms -- you WILL > run into limitations that you can't get around and are at their mercy. Don't > buy the hype that DIV's are the magic bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- > Tables are still the best and most ubiquitous way to align things in a > browser agnostic way (including mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. > > I've not used Zend myself, so I can't say for certain, but the above > tenements I think would still hold true. I guess I would trust the Zend one > the most given they actually make PHP, but at this point in time, I would > never choose to use a bloated framework. Then again, I write enterprise > level and very custom applications (Saas) so maybe this doesn't apply if all > you're trying to do is make yet another Blog or Photo-album or > personal/corporate website or something generic/basic. I've been coding > nearly 20 years and founded several $MM companies. That's my take (or rant > depending on how you look at it). > > Daevid. > http://daevid.com > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:36 +, jco...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've been reading about these great new 'frameworks' for PHP development. > > The most similar experience I have so far is using PEAR/Smarty in > application development. > > I am becoming very interested in adding one (or more) of these frameworks > to my work existence. > > I'm leaning toward the Zend Framework for the following reasons: > 1. Zend's commitment to PHP in the enterprise environment > 2. I'm studying for Zend PHP certification...so remaining within the same > family sort of makes sense. > 3. It's widely heralded as a very good 'framework' > 4. Integration with my IDE, Zend Studio > 5. Great support/userbase/forums/docs > > I'm getting ready to start a new project that is going to be somewhat of a > stretch for me. It'll be probably the most complex project I've done where > I'm the only designer/developer and have to do everything myself: from func > spec to mockups to wireframes to database design to documentation to code > to maintenance...all of it is me. > > What do you think, should I kill 2 birds with one stone and use the ZF to > build this new project? Or would i
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:17:51AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > > > > > >The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > > >magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > > > What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML > > is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) > > deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. > > It's not a fair comparison. It's like saying here's a bucket of water. I > want you to take it across the road using one of the following methods: I wouldn't consider it a truly scientific comparison. The testing method seems a little odd to me. Nonetheless, the point is makes is clear: PHP is 70% (more or less) efficient in rendering pages than straight HTML, and the "best" frameworks are only about 20% as efficient as straight PHP. We can argue about the exact numbers, but the results make clear that for speed HTML > PHP > frameworks. (And really, can you logically argue that point?) From this, you don't draw the conclusion to not use frameworks or PHP. From this, you now know one of the trade-offs in using PHP and frameworks. And you get some idea of the magnitude of its impact. (These guys didn't even bother to test HTML with a bunch of Javascript or complex CSS in it. Might PHP have been faster?) Is *coding* faster and more efficient with frameworks? Sure. Does the code execute as fast? No. If execution speed is your priority, then you either scrap the framework, resort to a caching solution (which some of the frameworks already have in place, but which the testers didn't test), or figure something else out (like C?). If execution speed isn't your priority, then you might look instead at a framework. Anyway, the survey is just a tool which lets you know about one of the trade-offs in web design. I doubt any other method of testing would skew the results all that much. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:20:16AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > > > Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in > > this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this > > is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened > > which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the > > CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads > > consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. > > Moot point if you're using an accelerator like eAccelerator or APC since > these cache the data in memory. Similarly, most operating systems cache > file reads also, so it's probably not as expensive without an > accelerator as you think either. Perhaps, but since much of the C code I've written is on Linux servers like those used by most of the hosting companies, and since I can't control whether they do or don't cache pages, my personal experience (and simple logic) guides me to believe file manipulation is far more time consuming than simple manipulation of strings, number and arrays. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
I think I'm going to stick with objects generated by POG, PEAR classes where they can save me time and Smarty templates for display. Glad we had this little fireside chat before I started on my next project with an ambition to use some fancy new framework. You guys saved me what sounds like a LOT of time. Thanks, John Corry
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 13:52 -0500, Sam Stelfox wrote: > Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > > > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001198.html > > I know this blog isn't specifically about PHP but he makes a good > general point that can be applied to this conversation very well. > > For those who don't want to read the article it's about the cost of > time spent programming vs hardware. Even if a framework will run > slower than raw HTML or a simple PHP page on it's own, if that > framework saves you a significant amount of time developing, and the > server your running the application on isn't as responsive as you > like, maybe it would be cheaper just to add another server and load > balance the two. A lot of frameworks include stuff exactly for load > balancing making your whole application a lot more flexible and able > to withstand a lot more growth without you having to write any extra > code. That sounds great in theory, but the reality is harsh and disappointing. That was my biggest problem with Symfony -- not raw speed of page serving (although it is slow and you can see/feel it. and we did have 5 servers: load balancer/web1/web2/masterDB/slaveDB) -- but the overhead of creating a page. Learning the framework took significant time. Learning it well enough to be productive in it took even more. There is a difference from reading a book and understanding the concepts vs. sitting down and creating something that you don't have an example for. That takes a lot of research, document reading (and symfony's documentation SUCKED -- maybe I'm just spoiled by php.net), asking questions on the email list, waiting for replies, running into limitations *in* the framework or WORSE yet, BUGS *in* the framework. Then just to do the simplest of things you have to extract it into this MVC architecture and ORM and do you use a partial or some other mechanism. Then you have to pass arrays of parameters and objects around. Then there are NEW "reserved" words that the framework has. Pages that I could have written (and written very well, clean, maintainable and scalable) in an hour were now taking hours or more because of all the routing, models, views, controllers, yaml, schema, scripts to rebuild/generate, etc that needed to be setup. I don't disagree with the concept of a framework. I think it has an intrinsic value and would love to see them evolve and improve. My problem is with the current state of affairs. The bulk. The bloat. The bugs. The limitations. Ignoring Joe Blow and his blog or photo album or some other stupid "who gives a $hit about it" website -- the way I see it, there are those that want a framework to save them time to get a site up quickly... a prototype lets say. So great, they're wonderful for that. Symfony does some magic to create the "CRUD" for admin backend pages automatically even. But now you have a site up and you want to start building upon it -- you're stuck with this cruft and bloated framework "forever" now. OR you have to re-build it from scratch all over again. The other kinds of people are those who are writing a serious SaaS or other enterprise/significant-money-and-time-involved site. They are going to want all kinds of control and customization and optimization of the code and database. Once you start getting into 100k or 1M+ rows and joins, ORM fails miserably, so then you have to "optimize" by doing raw SQL -- and once you've done that, you loose the (perceived) benefits of the ORM -- so why bother with that layer in the first place. Just use a hybrid base class (as I posted) and get an Object with all the benefits of SQL too. Ignoring that, so you want some feature. Great! You go hunt and find a plug-in to save you weeks of work -- guess what? It is NEVER going to do EVERYTHING you want it to do. So now what? Do you modify the plugin (and forever merge those changes back with new updates)? Do you try to extend it somehow if even possible? Or do you just write your own? Probably you will write your own -- so again, what did the framework save you? At my last company, we wanted comment sections, blogs, photo albums, voting, ranking and all sorts of other "common" features. Well, if you didn't have your database in the way they needed it, or your layout the way they had it, or whatever other idiosyncrasy required, it was barely usable and often unusable. Finally once you start using a framework for everything, it seems people forget how to do anything outside of it. At my last company, they had no concept of straight SQL which improved a news section with 100k rows to parse from minutes to seconds. They didn't know about include() which we used to automate the menu system for sub-sections and was impossible to do (the way we wanted to do it) with the framework due to scoping issues. The worst example was this script that had to update various t
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
Daevid Vincent wrote: > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001198.html I know this blog isn't specifically about PHP but he makes a good general point that can be applied to this conversation very well. For those who don't want to read the article it's about the cost of time spent programming vs hardware. Even if a framework will run slower than raw HTML or a simple PHP page on it's own, if that framework saves you a significant amount of time developing, and the server your running the application on isn't as responsive as you like, maybe it would be cheaper just to add another server and load balance the two. A lot of frameworks include stuff exactly for load balancing making your whole application a lot more flexible and able to withstand a lot more growth without you having to write any extra code.
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 19:37 +0200, Sancar Saran wrote: > On Thursday 15 January 2009 17:45:35 Robert Cummings wrote: > > > > > > > Hell, yes, signed to from start to end. > > > > > > After RoR, PHP guys (including Zend) goes nuts. > > > Every one eat his brains to develop RoR like Framework. > > > > What are you smoking? I like my framework the way it is. I'm sure others > > like theirs the way it is. In no way do I try to be like RoR and > > probably for good reason since I hear mostly bad things about RoR. > > > Naah, I left somoking more than 3 years ago and having problems discussing in > English (still no former education). > > And I'm sorry, My English better than your Turkish. > So please be polute about my grammar errors. :) > > Everyone likes own dog-meat. > And, last week I meet a tiny php shop to fix their code against remote file > inclusion. Their code was uber mess and one thing make me sad. > > Their old coder (which he doesn't know anything about current php development > trends) do the job wint under 20k phtml code. (most of k was spend for html > tables). maybe 5 functions and so. > > I'm very sure to updating his code with current trends plus some improvement > under (excluding the templates) in 20k I can give the answer for 80% of web > demands. > > And if we look someting more TYPO3 / Joomla / Drupal can do the job. > > For Ruby, Perl, Python, you have have a web focused frame work to get job > done > in faster. > > And that php already web focused language. > > we need faster, more organized, better language, not uber bloated framwork > from ZEND. > > > > I wish to see fixed function parameter names > > > > Good luck with that... it's been shot down several times on the PHP > > internals list. > > > > > , option orders, easy and strong input validation in PHP 6. > > > > Isn't the filters stuff available in PHP5 already for doing stronger > > validation. It's not like input validation is difficult. > > > > > And they give full effort to generate Zend Framework. > > > > Huh? > > > > > Then what? It still harder than Ror... > > > > What is? PHP? What are you talking about? > > I mean, ZEND Framework still harder to handle than RoR. > > > > > > Hell yes, Compete own community. teh best way to spend your resources... > > > > Internal competition only makes something better. If all you have are > > yes men, then the only answer you'll get is "yes". Having those who > > dissent in opinion provides a basis for different views and approaches > > to problem solving. May survival of the fittest benefit all both from > > the perspective of getting a better final product and from the > > perspective of learning from mistakes along the way. > > Yes of course and that Zend was not M$, they not swim in to dollar filled > pools. > > And wIth zend framework, Zend begin rivalling against CI, Symphony, Solar and > other popular framework communuties. (including yours and mine). Ah, I see what your saying... I thought you were railing on PHP (punny eh?) when you were actually railing on Zend in particular. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thursday 15 January 2009 17:45:35 Robert Cummings wrote: > > > > Hell, yes, signed to from start to end. > > > > After RoR, PHP guys (including Zend) goes nuts. > > Every one eat his brains to develop RoR like Framework. > > What are you smoking? I like my framework the way it is. I'm sure others > like theirs the way it is. In no way do I try to be like RoR and > probably for good reason since I hear mostly bad things about RoR. > Naah, I left somoking more than 3 years ago and having problems discussing in English (still no former education). And I'm sorry, My English better than your Turkish. So please be polute about my grammar errors. :) Everyone likes own dog-meat. And, last week I meet a tiny php shop to fix their code against remote file inclusion. Their code was uber mess and one thing make me sad. Their old coder (which he doesn't know anything about current php development trends) do the job wint under 20k phtml code. (most of k was spend for html tables). maybe 5 functions and so. I'm very sure to updating his code with current trends plus some improvement under (excluding the templates) in 20k I can give the answer for 80% of web demands. And if we look someting more TYPO3 / Joomla / Drupal can do the job. For Ruby, Perl, Python, you have have a web focused frame work to get job done in faster. And that php already web focused language. we need faster, more organized, better language, not uber bloated framwork from ZEND. > > I wish to see fixed function parameter names > > Good luck with that... it's been shot down several times on the PHP > internals list. > > > , option orders, easy and strong input validation in PHP 6. > > Isn't the filters stuff available in PHP5 already for doing stronger > validation. It's not like input validation is difficult. > > > And they give full effort to generate Zend Framework. > > Huh? > > > Then what? It still harder than Ror... > > What is? PHP? What are you talking about? I mean, ZEND Framework still harder to handle than RoR. > > > Hell yes, Compete own community. teh best way to spend your resources... > > Internal competition only makes something better. If all you have are > yes men, then the only answer you'll get is "yes". Having those who > dissent in opinion provides a basis for different views and approaches > to problem solving. May survival of the fittest benefit all both from > the perspective of getting a better final product and from the > perspective of learning from mistakes along the way. Yes of course and that Zend was not M$, they not swim in to dollar filled pools. And wIth zend framework, Zend begin rivalling against CI, Symphony, Solar and other popular framework communuties. (including yours and mine). > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > http://www.interjinn.com > Application and Templating Framework for PHP Regards Sancar
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 17:34 +0200, Sancar Saran wrote: > On Wednesday 14 January 2009 23:39:02 Daevid Vincent wrote: > > Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > > debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience > > with using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it > > was so cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC > > thing can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then > > if you want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train > > them and let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core > > project too! More wasted time. > > > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > > > The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all > > people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap you > > end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to deviate > > at all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just > > can't. They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but > > honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you > > want. It might be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a > > button or something and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you > > have this website that has this section that doesn't look like the rest > > of your site. And if you find a bug, you have to try to either fix it > > yourself and then keep those changes migrated into new updates, or > > submit it to the developer and hope they implement them (and trust me, > > you can submit to them and have them rejected for all sorts of lame > > reasons -- even though the work has been done and you're using it!) > > > > I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers > > and functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer > > and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) > > but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall > > into the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB > > calls (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you > > almost never do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like > > QuickForms -- you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around > > and are at their mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic > > bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- Tables are still the best and > > most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way (including > > mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. > > > > I've not used Zend myself, so I can't say for certain, but the above > > tenements I think would still hold true. I guess I would trust the Zend > > one the most given they actually make PHP, but at this point in time, I > > would never choose to use a bloated framework. Then again, I write > > enterprise level and very custom applications (Saas) so maybe this > > doesn't apply if all you're trying to do is make yet another Blog or > > Photo-album or personal/corporate website or something generic/basic. > > I've been coding nearly 20 years and founded several $MM companies. > > That's my take (or rant depending on how you look at it). > > > > Daevid. > > http://daevid.com > > > > Hell, yes, signed to from start to end. > > After RoR, PHP guys (including Zend) goes nuts. > Every one eat his brains to develop RoR like Framework. What are you smoking? I like my framework the way it is. I'm sure others like theirs the way it is. In no way do I try to be like RoR and probably for good reason since I hear mostly bad things about RoR. > I wish to see fixed function parameter names Good luck with that... it's been shot down several times on the PHP internals list. > , option orders, easy and strong input validation in PHP 6. Isn't the filters stuff available in PHP5 already for doing stronger validation. It's not like input validation is difficult. > And they give full effort to generate Zend Framework. Huh? > Then what? It still harder than Ror... What is? PHP? What are you talking about? > Hell yes, Compete own community. teh best way to spend your resources... Internal competition only makes something better. If all you have are yes men, then the only answer you'll get is "yes". Having those who dissent in opinion provides a basis for different views and approaches to problem solving. May survival of the fittest benefit all both from the perspective of getting a better final product and from the perspective of learning from mistakes along the way. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 23:39:02 Daevid Vincent wrote: > Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience > with using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it > was so cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC > thing can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then > if you want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train > them and let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core > project too! More wasted time. > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all > people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap you > end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to deviate > at all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just > can't. They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but > honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you > want. It might be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a > button or something and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you > have this website that has this section that doesn't look like the rest > of your site. And if you find a bug, you have to try to either fix it > yourself and then keep those changes migrated into new updates, or > submit it to the developer and hope they implement them (and trust me, > you can submit to them and have them rejected for all sorts of lame > reasons -- even though the work has been done and you're using it!) > > I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers > and functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer > and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) > but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall > into the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB > calls (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you > almost never do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like > QuickForms -- you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around > and are at their mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic > bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- Tables are still the best and > most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way (including > mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. > > I've not used Zend myself, so I can't say for certain, but the above > tenements I think would still hold true. I guess I would trust the Zend > one the most given they actually make PHP, but at this point in time, I > would never choose to use a bloated framework. Then again, I write > enterprise level and very custom applications (Saas) so maybe this > doesn't apply if all you're trying to do is make yet another Blog or > Photo-album or personal/corporate website or something generic/basic. > I've been coding nearly 20 years and founded several $MM companies. > That's my take (or rant depending on how you look at it). > > Daevid. > http://daevid.com > Hell, yes, signed to from start to end. After RoR, PHP guys (including Zend) goes nuts. Every one eat his brains to develop RoR like Framework. I wish to see fixed function parameter names, option orders, easy and strong input validation in PHP 6. And they give full effort to generate Zend Framework. Then what? It still harder than Ror... Hell yes, Compete own community. teh best way to spend your resources... Sancar Saran
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Jan 15, 2009, at 10:19 AM, "Boyd, Todd M." wrote: -Original Message- From: Paul M Foster [mailto:pa...@quillandmouse.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:18 PM To: php-general@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't. ---8<--- I agree and disagree. I agree there's waaay too much herd mentality in the programming field. (Fortunately, Linus Torvalds didn't listen to the academics who insisted that microkernels where THE WAY, or we wouldn't have Linux today.) OO is nifty for some things, but it's certainly not the "fountain of reusability" it was originally promoted to be. And I also agree about tables versus CSS. I can render a page very precisely with tables that would take me hours to get right with CSS. And I really don't give a crap about what "experts" say about anything. I find "experts" to be wrong much of the time. OTOH, I just finished writing about 80K lines of PHP/HTML, all by hand, no OO, no classes, no nothing. Each page in one file, except for a few helper functions in a couple of common files. I wouldn't want to go through that again. I've opted for a framework on rewriting this code, just to cut down on the number of lines of code I have to manually write. But I built my own framework, which doesn't call in 20 files for each page load. Very compact. Probably not suitable for every kind of project, but it works for this. Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. http://www.giveupandusetables.com 'nuff said. // Todd -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Awesome :-) Bastien -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
> -Original Message- > From: Paul M Foster [mailto:pa...@quillandmouse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:18 PM > To: php-general@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't. > ---8<--- > I agree and disagree. I agree there's waaay too much herd mentality in > the programming field. (Fortunately, Linus Torvalds didn't listen to > the > academics who insisted that microkernels where THE WAY, or we wouldn't > have Linux today.) OO is nifty for some things, but it's certainly not > the "fountain of reusability" it was originally promoted to be. And I > also agree about tables versus CSS. I can render a page very precisely > with tables that would take me hours to get right with CSS. And I > really > don't give a crap about what "experts" say about anything. I find > "experts" to be wrong much of the time. > > OTOH, I just finished writing about 80K lines of PHP/HTML, all by hand, > no OO, no classes, no nothing. Each page in one file, except for a few > helper functions in a couple of common files. I wouldn't want to go > through that again. I've opted for a framework on rewriting this code, > just to cut down on the number of lines of code I have to manually > write. But I built my own framework, which doesn't call in 20 files for > each page load. Very compact. Probably not suitable for every kind of > project, but it works for this. > > Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only > in > this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While > this > is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened > which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the > CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads > consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. http://www.giveupandusetables.com 'nuff said. // Todd -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in > this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this > is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened > which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the > CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads > consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. Moot point if you're using an accelerator like eAccelerator or APC since these cache the data in memory. Similarly, most operating systems cache file reads also, so it's probably not as expensive without an accelerator as you think either. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > >Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > >debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience with > >using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it was > > so > >cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC thing > >can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if you > >want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them > > and > >let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project > > too! > >More wasted time. > > > >The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > >magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML > is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) > deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. It's not a fair comparison. It's like saying here's a bucket of water. I want you to take it across the road using one of the following methods: a) Walking b) Driving a truck c) Flying an airplane Well of course a) wins in this contrived example because the truck requires you to open the door, put the key in the ignition, and start the truck (you may even have to walk to the gas station half a kilometre away first). Similarly for the airplane. However, very few web applications are a walk across the road. Some are... anything complex is not. Now, if I change the problem to something a little more realistic and instead ask that you bring a parcel to John Doe who just happens to live in Slumber Acres 5km outside of town... at the other side of town-- then tell me which is now the best option? Now, moving along... what if the parcel is to go to John Doe's grandmother who lives 4000km away in another country? You see, the study you read is contrived. By the time you are doing anything complex, you are VERY likely to incurr a similar startup cost as many a framework. So... the question is not whether frameworks are a good idea or not, it's what do they offer and how well were they built. Obviously some frameworks have terrible start up conditions and general run-time efficiency. However, they may be more modular in general, allowing you to quickly piece together an alternate mode of transportation rather than inventing your own airplane or car. Others will be quite quick but may not handle everything you throw at them or will require more low level programming to accomplish more complex tasks. And then there's the town fool... the person who wastes everyone's time declaring the sky is falling... or the world is coming to an end... or that frameworks are pointless and everyone should code from cratch in rote PHP. Pick the tool for the job... there are times a quick PHP script is the answer, and there are times when it is not. PHP is itself a framework over C. C is a framework over assembly. Assembly is a framework over machine language. Each of these incurrs a cost, but nobody is suggesting you write a website in assembly. Please DO develop your critical thinking before reading such sites and jumping to conclusions. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 15:47 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent > > > wrote: > > > >> > > http://daevid.com > > > >> > > > > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > > >> > features this site requires." > > > >> > > > > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > > >> > > > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > > > >> technology back. > > > > > > > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > > > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > > > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > > > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > > > > degrade to a normal content box. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rob. > > > > -- > > > > http://www.interjinn.com > > > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using Safari. :D > > > > > > -- > > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > His website made firefox crash! >=[! > > > > > Um. I am using FF on Ubuntu right now at work, and it works just fine. I > develop at home on XP and IE6 and IE7 and it also works. I guarantee you > that crash was not related to my site. > > All of you are spending way too much time on something that is besides > the point. My personal site has NOTHING to do with > Symfony/Zend/Cake/etc. frameworks per se. The reason you can't load it > in safari is a Javascript check and not PHP -- again off topic from this > conversation. It doesn't degrade nicely b/c I never bothered to > implement the other part of the Winlike "kit" which will degrade (as you > can see on their site http://www.winlike.net as I honestly don't really > care about Safari users (like 7% of the market) to be honest. I'm not using Safari, I'm using Opera. That brings it up to about 9% *heheh*. Cheers, Rob. > It's my > own personal site and if a Mac person can't use FF to view it, it's not > sweat off either of our backs.) > http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/07/01.9.shtml > > Can we please get back on topic? If you really want to see my > credentials, then go here: http://resume.daevid.com or go to my personal > site in Firefox or IE. A resume is a polished document specifically meant to extoll your virtues. Your personal website appears to be an example of your work ethic without attempting to extoll your virtues. You are the sum of your parts, each contributes to the body of knowledge about you. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent > > wrote: > > >> > > http://daevid.com > > >> > > > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > >> > features this site requires." > > >> > > > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > >> > > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > > >> technology back. > > > > > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > > > degrade to a normal content box. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rob. > > > -- > > > http://www.interjinn.com > > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > > > > > > I'm using Safari. :D > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > His website made firefox crash! >=[! Well that would be a Firefox bug :) Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
I think Daevid has some valid points although I think frameworks still have a lot of value, I've recently learned to use the CakePHP framework and have been happy with the development time improvements. But more then that I've found it has made my applications more extensible and flexible. As to the point about training new employees to the framework - in my experience I would have much prefered previous colleagues to have used a framework which would at least provide a reference for me to use rather than seeing several development styles throughout the code and inconsistent documentation. No, frameworks are not silver bullets but still a useful programming tool in the right situations/applications. Cheers, Ewen 2009/1/15 Phpster > Core files are what my plans include too. > > Bastien > > Sent from my iPod > > On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:26 PM, "Kyle Terry" wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Paul M Foster > >wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: >>> >>> Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience >>> with >>> using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it >>> was so >>> cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC >>> thing >>> can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if >>> you >>> want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them >>> and >>> let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project >>> too! >>> More wasted time. The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 >>> >>> What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML >>> is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) >>> deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. >>> >>> The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap >>> you >>> end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to >>> deviate at >>> all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just >>> can't. >>> They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you want. It >>> might >>> be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a button or >>> something >>> and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you have this website >>> that >>> has this section that doesn't look like the rest of your site. And if >>> you >>> find a bug, you have to try to either fix it yourself and then keep >>> those >>> changes migrated into new updates, or submit it to the developer and >>> hope >>> they implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have >>> them >>> rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has >>> been >>> done and you're using it!) I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers >>> and >>> functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall >>> into >>> the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB >>> calls >>> (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you almost >>> never >>> do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like QuickForms >>> -- >>> you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around and are at >>> their >>> mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic bullet and TABLEs >>> are >>> "poor design" -- Tables are still the best and most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way (including mobile phones, etc.) >>> and >>> to layout forms. >>> >>> I agree and disagree. I agree there's waaay too much herd mentality in >>> the programming field. (Fortunately, Linus Torvalds didn't listen to the >>> academics who insisted that microkernels where THE WAY, or we wouldn't >>> have Linux today.) OO is nifty for some things, but it's certainly not >>> the "fountain of reusability" it was originally promoted to be. And I >>> also agree about tables versus CSS. I can render a page very precisely >>> with tables that would take me hours to get right with CSS. And I really >>> don't give a crap about what "experts" say about anything. I find >>> "experts" to be wrong much of the time. >>> >>> OTOH, I just finished writing about 80K lines of PHP/HTML, all by hand, >>> no OO, no classes, no nothing. E
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
Core files are what my plans include too. Bastien Sent from my iPod On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:26 PM, "Kyle Terry" wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Paul M Foster >wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience with using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it was so cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC thing can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if you want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them and let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project too! More wasted time. The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap you end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to deviate at all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just can't. They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you want. It might be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a button or something and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you have this website that has this section that doesn't look like the rest of your site. And if you find a bug, you have to try to either fix it yourself and then keep those changes migrated into new updates, or submit it to the developer and hope they implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have them rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has been done and you're using it!) I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers and functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over- engineer and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall into the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB calls (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you almost never do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like QuickForms -- you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around and are at their mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- Tables are still the best and most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way (including mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. I agree and disagree. I agree there's waaay too much herd mentality in the programming field. (Fortunately, Linus Torvalds didn't listen to the academics who insisted that microkernels where THE WAY, or we wouldn't have Linux today.) OO is nifty for some things, but it's certainly not the "fountain of reusability" it was originally promoted to be. And I also agree about tables versus CSS. I can render a page very precisely with tables that would take me hours to get right with CSS. And I really don't give a crap about what "experts" say about anything. I find "experts" to be wrong much of the time. OTOH, I just finished writing about 80K lines of PHP/HTML, all by hand, no OO, no classes, no nothing. Each page in one file, except for a few helper functions in a couple of common files. I wouldn't want to go through that again. I've opted for a framework on rewriting this code, just to cut down on the number of lines of code I have to manually write. But I built my own framework, which doesn't call in 20 files for each page load. Very compact. Probably not suitable for every kind of project, but it works for this. Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php I agree heavily on the file opening part. I hate having to look through a stack trace of 20 or 30 just to track down why an exception was thrown. We are working on moving our entire framework into less files and more of a core set of files that ha
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
For what it's worth, you are on my good guys list. Coming. From a Dba background I am in the camp of everything is a trade off. Ease of use for speed, functionality for complexity and so on. My two cents: zend has an advantage because you can use the bits and pieces without the need to have the whole in play. Codeigniter is nice because it's lighter weight means it is one of the fastest of the frameworks. Personally some of the larger frameworks with the orm layer I see as useful for wireframing or some quick samples for a prototype as they generate the basics of the interaction. Bastien Sent from my iPod On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: Lol, on your resumé page, the popup says you're not a Java man, but then the actual resumé says you are... :p No. I wrote Java for 3.5 years at WildTangent, a company I founded as employee #2 back in 1998, and left once I felt it was starting to become sketchy and we had grown to over 250 employees. That doesn't make me a "Java man". The popup is correct. I have no desire to code in Java or C# or Perl or any other language but LAMP (well, maybe Ruby would be acceptable). I get a recruiter a day contacting me in spite of that message, but it does help to weed out the rest of them. Knowing a language or previously coding in it doesn't mean you want to continue to use it forever. AND you worked for WildTangent. Enough said. Haha. When we started WildTangent, we were the first company to do 3D graphics in a web page. We effectively put microsoft's "Chrome" out of business and we did amazing things. You could write full blown games using basic Javascript or Java IN a web page. You didn't need to know complex math or collision detection algorithms or trig or calc or anything. The average programmer could create games or other graphics (3D pie- charts, etc) easily. Now they're a less than average game company that doesn't even use the WebDriver and has a stigma of adware. I was proud of what I accomplished at WildTangent, despite what it has degraded into now (which I left in 10/2001, so had nothing to do with that debacle). *sigh* It's unfortunate you guys can't see past some superficial stuff and have an intelligent dialog about frameworks and help the OP with his question. Instead this has turned into an "attack" on me -- one of the few people who posted opinions and helpful insight for him to make an informed decision. Thanks to those who did agree with me, and even those who disagree'd politely. d. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > >Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > >debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience > with > >using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it > was so > >cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC > thing > >can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if > you > >want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them > and > >let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project > too! > >More wasted time. > > > >The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > >magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML > is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) > deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. > > > > >The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all > >people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap > you > >end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to > deviate at > >all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just > can't. > >They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but honestly, > >rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you want. It > might > >be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a button or > something > >and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you have this website > that > >has this section that doesn't look like the rest of your site. And if > you > >find a bug, you have to try to either fix it yourself and then keep > those > >changes migrated into new updates, or submit it to the developer and > hope > >they implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have > them > >rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has > been > >done and you're using it!) > > > >I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers > and > >functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer and > >over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) but > >don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall > into > >the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB > calls > >(see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you almost > never > >do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like QuickForms > -- > >you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around and are at > their > >mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic bullet and TABLEs > are > >"poor design" -- Tables are still the best and most ubiquitous way to > >align things in a browser agnostic way (including mobile phones, etc.) > and > >to layout forms. > > I agree and disagree. I agree there's waaay too much herd mentality in > the programming field. (Fortunately, Linus Torvalds didn't listen to the > academics who insisted that microkernels where THE WAY, or we wouldn't > have Linux today.) OO is nifty for some things, but it's certainly not > the "fountain of reusability" it was originally promoted to be. And I > also agree about tables versus CSS. I can render a page very precisely > with tables that would take me hours to get right with CSS. And I really > don't give a crap about what "experts" say about anything. I find > "experts" to be wrong much of the time. > > OTOH, I just finished writing about 80K lines of PHP/HTML, all by hand, > no OO, no classes, no nothing. Each page in one file, except for a few > helper functions in a couple of common files. I wouldn't want to go > through that again. I've opted for a framework on rewriting this code, > just to cut down on the number of lines of code I have to manually > write. But I built my own framework, which doesn't call in 20 files for > each page load. Very compact. Probably not suitable for every kind of > project, but it works for this. > > Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in > this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this > is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened > which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the > CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads > consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. > > Paul > -- > Paul M. Foster > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I agree heavily on the file opening part. I hate having to look through a stack trace of 20 or 30 just to track down why an exception was thrown. We are working on moving our entire fram
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:39:02PM -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: >Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" >debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience with >using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it was so >cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC thing >can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if you >want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them and >let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project too! >More wasted time. > >The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of >magnitude: [1]http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 What a great link! I've never seen this kind of comparison before. HTML is 70% faster than straight PHP, and the frameworks (even codeigniter) deliver less than 20% of the performance of straight PHP. > >The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all >people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap you >end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to deviate at >all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just can't. >They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but honestly, >rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you want. It might >be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a button or something >and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you have this website that >has this section that doesn't look like the rest of your site. And if you >find a bug, you have to try to either fix it yourself and then keep those >changes migrated into new updates, or submit it to the developer and hope >they implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have them >rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has been >done and you're using it!) > >I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers and >functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer and >over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) but >don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall into >the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB calls >(see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you almost never >do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like QuickForms -- >you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around and are at their >mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic bullet and TABLEs are >"poor design" -- Tables are still the best and most ubiquitous way to >align things in a browser agnostic way (including mobile phones, etc.) and >to layout forms. I agree and disagree. I agree there's waaay too much herd mentality in the programming field. (Fortunately, Linus Torvalds didn't listen to the academics who insisted that microkernels where THE WAY, or we wouldn't have Linux today.) OO is nifty for some things, but it's certainly not the "fountain of reusability" it was originally promoted to be. And I also agree about tables versus CSS. I can render a page very precisely with tables that would take me hours to get right with CSS. And I really don't give a crap about what "experts" say about anything. I find "experts" to be wrong much of the time. OTOH, I just finished writing about 80K lines of PHP/HTML, all by hand, no OO, no classes, no nothing. Each page in one file, except for a few helper functions in a couple of common files. I wouldn't want to go through that again. I've opted for a framework on rewriting this code, just to cut down on the number of lines of code I have to manually write. But I built my own framework, which doesn't call in 20 files for each page load. Very compact. Probably not suitable for every kind of project, but it works for this. Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > > > Lol, on your resumé page, the popup says you're not a Java man, but > then > > > the actual resumé says you are... :p > > No. I wrote Java for 3.5 years at WildTangent, a company I founded as > employee #2 back in 1998, and left once I felt it was starting to become > sketchy and we had grown to over 250 employees. That doesn't make me a > "Java man". The popup is correct. I have no desire to code in Java or C# > or Perl or any What is your gripe on perl? That language is awesome. > other language but LAMP (well, maybe Ruby would be > acceptable). I get a recruiter a day contacting me in spite of that > message, but it does help to weed out the rest of them. Knowing a > language or previously coding in it doesn't mean you want to continue to > use it forever. > > > > AND you worked for WildTangent. Enough said. Haha. > > When we started WildTangent, we were the first company to do 3D graphics > in a web page. We effectively put microsoft's "Chrome" out of business > and we did amazing things. You could write full blown games using basic > Javascript or Java IN a web page. You didn't need to know complex math > or collision detection algorithms or trig or calc or anything. The > average programmer could create games or other graphics (3D pie-charts, > etc) easily. > > Now they're a less than average game company that doesn't even use the > WebDriver and has a stigma of adware. I was proud of what I accomplished > at WildTangent, despite what it has degraded into now (which I left in > 10/2001, so had nothing to do with that debacle). > > *sigh* It's unfortunate you guys can't see past some superficial stuff > and have an intelligent dialog about frameworks and help the OP with his > question. Instead this has turned into an "attack" on me -- one of the > few people who posted opinions and helpful insight for him to make an > informed decision. Thanks to those who did agree with me, and even > those who disagree'd politely. > > d. > > -- Kyle Terry | www.kyleterry.com
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
> > Lol, on your resumé page, the popup says you're not a Java man, but then > > the actual resumé says you are... :p No. I wrote Java for 3.5 years at WildTangent, a company I founded as employee #2 back in 1998, and left once I felt it was starting to become sketchy and we had grown to over 250 employees. That doesn't make me a "Java man". The popup is correct. I have no desire to code in Java or C# or Perl or any other language but LAMP (well, maybe Ruby would be acceptable). I get a recruiter a day contacting me in spite of that message, but it does help to weed out the rest of them. Knowing a language or previously coding in it doesn't mean you want to continue to use it forever. > > AND you worked for WildTangent. Enough said. Haha. When we started WildTangent, we were the first company to do 3D graphics in a web page. We effectively put microsoft's "Chrome" out of business and we did amazing things. You could write full blown games using basic Javascript or Java IN a web page. You didn't need to know complex math or collision detection algorithms or trig or calc or anything. The average programmer could create games or other graphics (3D pie-charts, etc) easily. Now they're a less than average game company that doesn't even use the WebDriver and has a stigma of adware. I was proud of what I accomplished at WildTangent, despite what it has degraded into now (which I left in 10/2001, so had nothing to do with that debacle). *sigh* It's unfortunate you guys can't see past some superficial stuff and have an intelligent dialog about frameworks and help the OP with his question. Instead this has turned into an "attack" on me -- one of the few people who posted opinions and helpful insight for him to make an informed decision. Thanks to those who did agree with me, and even those who disagree'd politely. d.
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Eric Butera wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings >>> > wrote: >>> > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: >>> > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: >>> > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent >>> > wrote: >>> > >> > > http://daevid.com >>> > >> > >>> > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced >>> > >> > features this site requires." >>> > >> > >>> > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D >>> > >> >>> > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web >>> > >> technology back. >>> > > >>> > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just >>> > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why >>> > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. >>> > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just >>> > > degrade to a normal content box. >>> > > >>> > > Cheers, >>> > > Rob. >>> > > -- >>> > > http://www.interjinn.com >>> > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > I'm using Safari. :D >>> > >>> > -- >>> > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) >>> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> > >>> > >>> His website made firefox crash! >=[! >>> >> >> >> Um. I am using FF on Ubuntu right now at work, and it works just fine. I >> develop at home on XP and IE6 and IE7 and it also works. I guarantee you >> that crash was not related to my site. >> >> All of you are spending way too much time on something that is besides >> the point. My personal site has NOTHING to do with >> Symfony/Zend/Cake/etc. frameworks per se. The reason you can't load it >> in safari is a Javascript check and not PHP -- again off topic from this >> conversation. It doesn't degrade nicely b/c I never bothered to >> implement the other part of the Winlike "kit" which will degrade (as you >> can see on their site http://www.winlike.net as I honestly don't really >> care about Safari users (like 7% of the market) to be honest. It's my >> own personal site and if a Mac person can't use FF to view it, it's not >> sweat off either of our backs.) >> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/07/01.9.shtml >> >> Can we please get back on topic? If you really want to see my >> credentials, then go here: http://resume.daevid.com or go to my personal >> site in Firefox or IE. >> >> > > Oh comon I was just playing. > I'm not sure the rest of the class is now, though. :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings >> > wrote: >> > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: >> > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent >> > wrote: >> > >> > > http://daevid.com >> > >> > >> > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced >> > >> > features this site requires." >> > >> > >> > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D >> > >> >> > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web >> > >> technology back. >> > > >> > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just >> > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why >> > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. >> > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just >> > > degrade to a normal content box. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Rob. >> > > -- >> > > http://www.interjinn.com >> > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP >> > > >> > > >> > >> > I'm using Safari. :D >> > >> > -- >> > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) >> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > >> > >> His website made firefox crash! >=[! >> > > > Um. I am using FF on Ubuntu right now at work, and it works just fine. I > develop at home on XP and IE6 and IE7 and it also works. I guarantee you > that crash was not related to my site. > > All of you are spending way too much time on something that is besides > the point. My personal site has NOTHING to do with > Symfony/Zend/Cake/etc. frameworks per se. The reason you can't load it > in safari is a Javascript check and not PHP -- again off topic from this > conversation. It doesn't degrade nicely b/c I never bothered to > implement the other part of the Winlike "kit" which will degrade (as you > can see on their site http://www.winlike.net as I honestly don't really > care about Safari users (like 7% of the market) to be honest. It's my > own personal site and if a Mac person can't use FF to view it, it's not > sweat off either of our backs.) > http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/07/01.9.shtml > > Can we please get back on topic? If you really want to see my > credentials, then go here: http://resume.daevid.com or go to my personal > site in Firefox or IE. > > Oh comon I was just playing. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 15:47 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings < > rob...@interjinn.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent < > dae...@daevid.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > http://daevid.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > > > >> > features this site requires." > > > > >> > > > > > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > > > >> > > > > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > > > > >> technology back. > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window > just > > > > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure > why > > > > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and > CSS. > > > > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should > just > > > > > degrade to a normal content box. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Rob. > > > > > -- > > > > > http://www.interjinn.com > > > > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using Safari. :D > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > > > His website made firefox crash! >=[! > > > > > > > > > Um. I am using FF on Ubuntu right now at work, and it works just fine. I > > develop at home on XP and IE6 and IE7 and it also works. I guarantee you > > that crash was not related to my site. > > > > All of you are spending way too much time on something that is besides > > the point. My personal site has NOTHING to do with > > Symfony/Zend/Cake/etc. frameworks per se. The reason you can't load it > > in safari is a Javascript check and not PHP -- again off topic from this > > conversation. It doesn't degrade nicely b/c I never bothered to > > implement the other part of the Winlike "kit" which will degrade (as you > > can see on their site http://www.winlike.net as I honestly don't really > > care about Safari users (like 7% of the market) to be honest. It's my > > own personal site and if a Mac person can't use FF to view it, it's not > > sweat off either of our backs.) > > http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/07/01.9.shtml > > > > Can we please get back on topic? If you really want to see my > > credentials, then go here: http://resume.daevid.com or go to my personal > > site in Firefox or IE. > > > Lol, on your resumé page, the popup says you're not a Java man, but then > the actual resumé says you are... :p > > > Ash > www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > AND you worked for WildTangent. Enough said. Haha. -- Kyle Terry | www.kyleterry.com
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 15:47 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent > > > wrote: > > > >> > > http://daevid.com > > > >> > > > > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > > >> > features this site requires." > > > >> > > > > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > > >> > > > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > > > >> technology back. > > > > > > > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > > > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > > > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > > > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > > > > degrade to a normal content box. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rob. > > > > -- > > > > http://www.interjinn.com > > > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using Safari. :D > > > > > > -- > > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > His website made firefox crash! >=[! > > > > > Um. I am using FF on Ubuntu right now at work, and it works just fine. I > develop at home on XP and IE6 and IE7 and it also works. I guarantee you > that crash was not related to my site. > > All of you are spending way too much time on something that is besides > the point. My personal site has NOTHING to do with > Symfony/Zend/Cake/etc. frameworks per se. The reason you can't load it > in safari is a Javascript check and not PHP -- again off topic from this > conversation. It doesn't degrade nicely b/c I never bothered to > implement the other part of the Winlike "kit" which will degrade (as you > can see on their site http://www.winlike.net as I honestly don't really > care about Safari users (like 7% of the market) to be honest. It's my > own personal site and if a Mac person can't use FF to view it, it's not > sweat off either of our backs.) > http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/07/01.9.shtml > > Can we please get back on topic? If you really want to see my > credentials, then go here: http://resume.daevid.com or go to my personal > site in Firefox or IE. > Lol, on your resumé page, the popup says you're not a Java man, but then the actual resumé says you are... :p Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 14:28 -0800, Kyle Terry wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent > > wrote: > > >> > > http://daevid.com > > >> > > > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > >> > features this site requires." > > >> > > > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > >> > > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > > >> technology back. > > > > > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > > > degrade to a normal content box. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rob. > > > -- > > > http://www.interjinn.com > > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > > > > > > I'm using Safari. :D > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > His website made firefox crash! >=[! > Um. I am using FF on Ubuntu right now at work, and it works just fine. I develop at home on XP and IE6 and IE7 and it also works. I guarantee you that crash was not related to my site. All of you are spending way too much time on something that is besides the point. My personal site has NOTHING to do with Symfony/Zend/Cake/etc. frameworks per se. The reason you can't load it in safari is a Javascript check and not PHP -- again off topic from this conversation. It doesn't degrade nicely b/c I never bothered to implement the other part of the Winlike "kit" which will degrade (as you can see on their site http://www.winlike.net as I honestly don't really care about Safari users (like 7% of the market) to be honest. It's my own personal site and if a Mac person can't use FF to view it, it's not sweat off either of our backs.) http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/07/01.9.shtml Can we please get back on topic? If you really want to see my credentials, then go here: http://resume.daevid.com or go to my personal site in Firefox or IE.
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
If anything this strengthens my point... First of all, that is my PERSONAL site (notice it is my NAME), so it is NOT enterprise or SaaS. Second it uses the www.winlike.net Javascript FRAMEWORK (which I heavily manipulated in PHP to make the menu dynamic, adding a tertiary menu level and various other stuff). I had to reverse engineer everything and it doesn't work in Safari, but I'm pretty sure it's because of a JS check and not actual functionality of the browser. It will work in FF or IE. So I can either try to figure out where in their GERMAN code which has been obfuscated, the check for browser is and fix it, then modify changes in future versions, or i can hope they fix it and do an upgrade. Either way, it sucks. Roll your own -- then you have full control and also know exactly how something works. On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > http://daevid.com > > > > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > features this site requires." > > > > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > technology back.
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Eric Butera wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings > wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent > wrote: > >> > > http://daevid.com > >> > > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > >> > features this site requires." > >> > > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > >> > >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > >> technology back. > > > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > > degrade to a normal content box. > > > > Cheers, > > Rob. > > -- > > http://www.interjinn.com > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > > I'm using Safari. :D > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > His website made firefox crash! >=[! -- Kyle Terry | www.kyleterry.com
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: >> > > http://daevid.com >> > >> > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced >> > features this site requires." >> > >> > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D >> >> I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web >> technology back. > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > degrade to a normal content box. > > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > http://www.interjinn.com > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > I'm using Safari. :D -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:03 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > > http://daevid.com > > > > > > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > > features this site requires." > > > > > > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > > > I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > > technology back. > > Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just > like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why > Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. > Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just > degrade to a normal content box. > > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > http://www.interjinn.com > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > Spoofing the user agent string in opera doesn't fix it either! Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 17:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > > http://daevid.com > > > > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > > features this site requires." > > > > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D > > I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web > technology back. Hmmm.. so I opened it up in Firefox and there's this little window just like one I programmed for IE/Firefox/Opera 4 years ago. Not sure why Opera isn't supported, or any other browser with JavaScript and CSS. Reall, if the browser doesn't support the window thingy, it should just degrade to a normal content box. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 16:50 -0500, Eric Butera wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > > http://daevid.com > > "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced > features this site requires." > > That is pretty enteprisey! ;D I got the same message... 2001 called-- they'd like they're web technology back. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:39 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience > with using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and > it was so cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The > whole MVC thing can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite > steep. Then if you want to hire other developers to work with you, you > have to train them and let them ramp up on not only the framework but > also your core project too! More wasted time. > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all > people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap > you end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to > deviate at all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you > simply just can't. They seem attractive with all their plugins and > stuff, but honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, > the way you want. It might be as simple as trying to change the > look/feel of a button or something and you'll find out that you can't > -- so now you have this website that has this section that doesn't > look like the rest of your site. And if you find a bug, you have to > try to either fix it yourself and then keep those changes migrated > into new updates, or submit it to the developer and hope they > implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have them > rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has > been done and you're using it!) > > I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers > and functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer > and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) > but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't > fall into the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around > your DB calls (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and > you almost never do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something > like QuickForms -- you WILL run into limitations that you can't get > around and are at their mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the > magic bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- Tables are still the best > and most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way > (including mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. > > I've not used Zend myself, so I can't say for certain, but the above > tenements I think would still hold true. I guess I would trust the > Zend one the most given they actually make PHP, but at this point in > time, I would never choose to use a bloated framework. Then again, I > write enterprise level and very custom applications (Saas) so maybe > this doesn't apply if all you're trying to do is make yet another Blog > or Photo-album or personal/corporate website or something > generic/basic. I've been coding nearly 20 years and founded several > $MM companies. That's my take (or rant depending on how you look at > it). > > Daevid. > http://daevid.com > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:36 +, jco...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've been reading about these great new 'frameworks' for PHP development. > > > > The most similar experience I have so far is using PEAR/Smarty in > > application development. > > > > I am becoming very interested in adding one (or more) of these frameworks > > to my work existence. > > > > I'm leaning toward the Zend Framework for the following reasons: > > 1. Zend's commitment to PHP in the enterprise environment > > 2. I'm studying for Zend PHP certification...so remaining within the same > > family sort of makes sense. > > 3. It's widely heralded as a very good 'framework' > > 4. Integration with my IDE, Zend Studio > > 5. Great support/userbase/forums/docs > > > > I'm getting ready to start a new project that is going to be somewhat of a > > stretch for me. It'll be probably the most complex project I've done where > > I'm the only designer/developer and have to do everything myself: from func > > > > spec to mockups to wireframes to database design to documentation to code > > to maintenance...all of it is me. > > > > What do you think, should I kill 2 birds with one stone and use the ZF to > > build this new project? Or would it slow me down to add 'learning the ins > > and outs of a new way of working' to my already long list of tasks and > > short time to complete them? > > > > Zend touts this thing as 'saving time' and 'letting you work more > > efficiently'. Will the new developer who is learning how to use ZF realize > > those efficiencies or are they only for the people who are quite > > experienced with the framework? > > > > I'm curious about whether it's practical to begin with a framework by using > > > >
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:39 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote: > Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" > debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience > with using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and > it was so cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The > whole MVC thing can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite > steep. Then if you want to hire other developers to work with you, you > have to train them and let them ramp up on not only the framework but > also your core project too! More wasted time. > > The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of > magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 > > The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all > people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap > you end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to > deviate at all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you > simply just can't. They seem attractive with all their plugins and > stuff, but honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, > the way you want. It might be as simple as trying to change the > look/feel of a button or something and you'll find out that you can't > -- so now you have this website that has this section that doesn't > look like the rest of your site. And if you find a bug, you have to > try to either fix it yourself and then keep those changes migrated > into new updates, or submit it to the developer and hope they > implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have them > rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has > been done and you're using it!) > > I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers > and functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer > and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) > but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't > fall into the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around > your DB calls (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and > you almost never do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something > like QuickForms -- you WILL run into limitations that you can't get > around and are at their mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the > magic bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- Tables are still the best > and most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way > (including mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. > > I've not used Zend myself, so I can't say for certain, but the above > tenements I think would still hold true. I guess I would trust the > Zend one the most given they actually make PHP, but at this point in > time, I would never choose to use a bloated framework. Then again, I > write enterprise level and very custom applications (Saas) so maybe > this doesn't apply if all you're trying to do is make yet another Blog > or Photo-album or personal/corporate website or something > generic/basic. I've been coding nearly 20 years and founded several > $MM companies. That's my take (or rant depending on how you look at > it). So... to summarize... you've had a bad experience with one framework and decided to paint the rest with the colour of your experience. Seems a bit obtuse. Cheers, Rob. Ps. I'm not in any way recommending my own, I've let the documentation for that lag, so this is about your opinion of frameworks in general from one experience, and not anything to do with me proferring my own :) -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote: > http://daevid.com "It appears your browser does not support some of the advanced features this site requires." That is pretty enteprisey! ;D -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Zend Framework...where to start? -- don't.
Not to start a Holy War (as these "to framework" or "not to framework" debates often turn into), but I personally had a horrible experience with using frameworks. I was forced to use Symfony at my last job and it was so cumbersome and slow to do even the simplest things. The whole MVC thing can be overkill. Plus the learning curve can be quite steep. Then if you want to hire other developers to work with you, you have to train them and let them ramp up on not only the framework but also your core project too! More wasted time. The pages are significantly slower than straight PHP by orders of magnitude: http://paul-m-jones.com/?p=315 The basic problem with frameworks is they try to be one thing for all people. This carries a lot of baggage with it. There's a lot of crap you end up pulling in that you don't want/need. Plus if you want to deviate at all, you either have to roll your own, or sometimes you simply just can't. They seem attractive with all their plugins and stuff, but honestly, rarely do the plugins do EXACTLY what you want, the way you want. It might be as simple as trying to change the look/feel of a button or something and you'll find out that you can't -- so now you have this website that has this section that doesn't look like the rest of your site. And if you find a bug, you have to try to either fix it yourself and then keep those changes migrated into new updates, or submit it to the developer and hope they implement them (and trust me, you can submit to them and have them rejected for all sorts of lame reasons -- even though the work has been done and you're using it!) I advise against it. Just follow good practices and use thin wrappers and functions. Don't get all OO googlie eyed and try to over-engineer and over-OO the code. OO is great for some things (like a User class) but don't start making some OO page renderer or form builder. Don't fall into the DB Abstraction trap either -- just use a wrapper around your DB calls (see attached), so you can swap out that wrapper if (and you almost never do) you change the DB. Don't be suckered by something like QuickForms -- you WILL run into limitations that you can't get around and are at their mercy. Don't buy the hype that DIV's are the magic bullet and TABLEs are "poor design" -- Tables are still the best and most ubiquitous way to align things in a browser agnostic way (including mobile phones, etc.) and to layout forms. I've not used Zend myself, so I can't say for certain, but the above tenements I think would still hold true. I guess I would trust the Zend one the most given they actually make PHP, but at this point in time, I would never choose to use a bloated framework. Then again, I write enterprise level and very custom applications (Saas) so maybe this doesn't apply if all you're trying to do is make yet another Blog or Photo-album or personal/corporate website or something generic/basic. I've been coding nearly 20 years and founded several $MM companies. That's my take (or rant depending on how you look at it). Daevid. http://daevid.com On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:36 +, jco...@gmail.com wrote: > I've been reading about these great new 'frameworks' for PHP development. > > The most similar experience I have so far is using PEAR/Smarty in > application development. > > I am becoming very interested in adding one (or more) of these frameworks > to my work existence. > > I'm leaning toward the Zend Framework for the following reasons: > 1. Zend's commitment to PHP in the enterprise environment > 2. I'm studying for Zend PHP certification...so remaining within the same > family sort of makes sense. > 3. It's widely heralded as a very good 'framework' > 4. Integration with my IDE, Zend Studio > 5. Great support/userbase/forums/docs > > I'm getting ready to start a new project that is going to be somewhat of a > stretch for me. It'll be probably the most complex project I've done where > I'm the only designer/developer and have to do everything myself: from func > spec to mockups to wireframes to database design to documentation to code > to maintenance...all of it is me. > > What do you think, should I kill 2 birds with one stone and use the ZF to > build this new project? Or would it slow me down to add 'learning the ins > and outs of a new way of working' to my already long list of tasks and > short time to complete them? > > Zend touts this thing as 'saving time' and 'letting you work more > efficiently'. Will the new developer who is learning how to use ZF realize > those efficiencies or are they only for the people who are quite > experienced with the framework? > > I'm curious about whether it's practical to begin with a framework by using > it on a real, production project. > > ?? > > John Corry <> -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
