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