So for me in 3 words, CakePHP3 is: - Best ORM - Awesome Book / Docs - Super Maintainance
TLDR; CakePHP 2 Tops: - Book - Community - Linkable - Recursive = 3 ;P - Cake Bake and great bake looks out of the box - CRUDv3, Scaffold - Super maintainance cycles and fast security patches <3 - Super Stable - Highly integrated - Extensive unit tests - Good FRAMEwork that makes sane suggestions for you how to implement stuff: Models, Behaviors, Components, Controllers, Views, Helpers, Templates, Callbacks. - Great upgradability within major versions CakePHP 2 Flops: - Recursive = 3 ;) - ORM - Tightly coupled Honestly, ex post I think I might have stayed on Cake PHP 2 for too long and maybe should have switched for better code and maintainability - because of its weak and aged ORM and rather dirty model layer and its aged features from PHP <= 5.3 times. The little critique I had would be that maybe it had been a good idea to push the old cake3 as cake3. This what we got today is basically 'Cake 4'. The feature/architecture jump for the ORM is /that/ huge. So things have changed. Thanks to the cake core team Cake PHP 3 looks very very good and is already something other projects would ship as CakePHP 3.0 Final. So what about CakePHP 3? The tops of CakePHP 2 are still there: - Book - Community - Linkable replaced by awesomesauce ORM - very elegant and probably one of the best in PHP world and very close to AREL. - Cake Bake, RAD, CRUDv4 - Super maintainance cycles and fast security patches (at least I hope so ;) - Super stable already (e.g. it doesn't break at all edges in common cases) - Extensive unit tests - Good FRAMEwork that makes sane suggestions for you how to implement stuff: Models, Behaviors, Components, Controllers, Views, Helpers, Templates, Callbacks. What got improved over CakePHP 2: - ORM awsomesauce - Namespaces, recent PHP 5.4 features, aiming for PHP 5.5 in future releases (so that's a GOOD change as PHP is finally getting modern due to facebook's pressure by hiphop) - Less coupled, more open/reusable components (a similar way rails 3 went IMHO) - Very similar helper and controller APIs so migration of 50% of your app will be a breeze - Cells So for me in 3 words, CakePHP3 is: - Best ORM - Awesome Book / Docs - Super Maintainance What more can you get? On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:28:32 AM UTC+2, José Lorenzo wrote: > > Before giving my own view into this problem, you you guys list the reasons > why you think CakePHP is a cool or productive framework to work with? Just > give me 3 reasons, no comparisons with other frameworks > > On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:24:30 AM UTC+2, Jeremy Burns wrote: >> >> This is so true. I’m a huge fan of Cake but we do feel like the whipping >> boys sometimes. I recently hired someone into a project and the first thing >> he tried to do was change the framework for a whole bunch of vague reasons >> like ‘Laravel is just so much better’. >> >> Perhaps someone can devise some simple benchmarking challenges that the >> guardians of the various frameworks can take up themselves and then compare >> the actual results, rather than letting a random person do it out of the >> box. A competition, if you will. So, for example, write a thousand records >> to a database, read them back, perform some function and render them to >> screen. Yes, yes, I know there would need to be some element of a level >> playing field with server spec and the like, but it could be done. Then >> each framework can show it’s own best efforts and - importantly - will have >> no excuses about not understanding the framework or setting it up correctly. >> >> I haven’t had a ‘job’ for the past six years, but on the odd time that I >> decide a regular income would be nice I rarely - if ever - see CakePHP as a >> requirement. It’s always Symfony, Zend, Drupal, Code Ingniter, sometimes >> Laravel, sometimes ROR and sometimes something else. That’s awkward and I >> just can’t help wondering if I am swimming against a tide. Perhaps everyone >> else is right and I am wrong? TBH, I’m not clever enough to be able to >> explain why Cake is the right choice compared to others; some help there >> would be cool. >> >> On 30 Sep 2014, at 00:43, Reuben <reuben...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> My apologies, dereuromark, for the incorrect spelling of your handle. >> >> On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 09:40:31 UTC+10, Reuben wrote: >>> >>> The few times that I've seen CakePHP compared to other PHP frameworks is >>> in performance tests, and it never looks pretty. Usually the test is a >>> very simple Hello World test, or an action that reads/writes a bunch of >>> records to the database. Not really real work tests, and no effort to >>> configure the application to make sure it's doing the best that it can >>> (i.e. appropriate cache options, etc). >>> >>> There have been a few articles written on CakePHP and performance, and >>> all the stuff you can do before complaining about the framework itself. >>> >>> Unfortunately, when people are comparing PHP frameworks, they just look >>> for that performance index, and don't take too much notice of the merits of >>> the performance test taken. >>> >>> My perception is that at last check, there might be room for improvement >>> in the event model, but I don't do all the other things that can be done to >>> get better performance out of CakePHP, before going there, so it's never >>> been an issue for me. I also understand that start up times have been >>> improved with CakePHP 3, and the routing configuration required. >>> >>> Of course, CakePHP is more than just performance of the framework. The >>> documentation is great, the community is great and the core development >>> team are very approachable, via groups, irc and github issues. And the code >>> itself, should you need to look at it, is very readable. The only part >>> that makes my brain hurt a little is the event system, especially when >>> trying to work out, when this event is fired, what is listening for it in >>> the CakePHP core. >>> >>> Maybe there could be some articles written about the CakePHP core, to >>> make TheBakery a little more attractive to read. I'm more likely to read >>> CakePHP articles from Mark Story, AD7six or deuromark than peruse the 1 or >>> 2 paragraph articles on TheBakery. >>> >>> Regards >>> Reuben Helms >>> >>> On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 07:15:54 UTC+10, Florian Krämer wrote: >>>> >>>> In the official CakePHP Facebook group Yanuar Nurcahyo asked about >>>> opinions on that link >>>> http://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-Cakephp-popular-despite-being-one-of-the-earliest-php-framework-to-be-written >>>> >>>> I'll quote my own comment I've added to that posting: >>>> >>>> I'm a little shocked about the wrong information people spreading there >>>>> as well as the amount of false information. Especially the one that got 4 >>>>> up-votes. Most of the answers there read like FUD or written by people >>>>> who >>>>> can't or won't read documentation. Also I really don't get why people >>>>> always "need" bleeding edge php support. There is no urgent need or >>>>> do you migrate you app / server to a new php version just because it's >>>>> cool? The only problem that CakePHP has is an image problem. >>>> >>>> >>>> What I would like to discuss in this thread is reasons and solution to >>>> them. Why has CakePHP such a negative perception? The thing that bothers >>>> me >>>> personally the most is why the *uck do people say it has a bad >>>> documentation? Seriously, I don't get it. Can't they find the >>>> documentation? Can't they use it? Or is it really just FUD by some >>>> <random-framework> fanboys? >>>> >>>> The "stone age php version" isn't a very valid argument IMHO. Yes, I >>>> agree, CakePHP felt behind other frameworks for at least ~2 years and I've >>>> missed the namespace support more than one time. But that was really the >>>> only language feature I was really missing. Everything else is sugar on >>>> top >>>> of the cake. I don't know if other people update their servers and apps >>>> for >>>> fun and if they do the required testing for free for their clients...but >>>> well, looks like some guys out there have more a cowboy-coder attitude >>>> than >>>> a professional one. >>>> >>>> Also I don't get why people complain about the architecture of CakePHP, >>>> yes it is different, yes it gives you everything out of the box and isn't >>>> a >>>> package made of 100 loose libs and then glued together. This is IMHO >>>> actually an advantage and makes it easy to get started with it. And >>>> seriously, how often do you change the ORM stack of <random-framework> in >>>> reality? And on top of that, CakePHP 3.0, as far as I can tell, is more >>>> decoupled than 2.0 was. For example the face pattern in Laravel is, as far >>>> as I've worked with it and understood it, just one way you can use for >>>> dependency injection. The face seems to works like a proxy. I might be >>>> wrong, I haven't spent much time with it yet. SF2 is using a container >>>> object to deal with the dependencies. However, my point here is other >>>> frameworks *appear* to be more fancy and by this attract people who >>>> are looking for fancy things, "interesting" design patterns and >>>> architecture. Which brings us back to the cowboy-coder attitude. Something >>>> doesn't has to be fancy to just work. >>>> >>>> I know that for example Symfony gets a lot attention and exposure >>>> through having virtually one domain per component of their framework and a >>>> nice design for these sites and for whatever reason Symfony manages it >>>> somehow to get massive funding. Creating all these pages and a fancy >>>> design >>>> takes time and money. So I don't think doing something similar would be an >>>> option for CakePHP. Honestly I have no ideas what could be done to help >>>> making CakePHP look better (and stop these silly guys from spreading FUD). >>>> I would not mind all their critics at all if they would bring valid and >>>> detailed arguments. But everybody complaining about CakePHP is just >>>> repeating other peoples FUD about a bad documentation and not exactly >>>> mentioning what is wrong with the architecture. Going into a discussion is >>>> like going into a fight without a weapon. But well, the problem here is >>>> nobody fights these false "arguments". :( >>>> >>>> I personally don't mind using Symfony2 or Laravel, they're good >>>> frameworks as well, but I don't think that CakePHP 3.0 has to hide in any >>>> aspect, nor had Cake2 when it was new. But CakePHP has a completely >>>> different philosophy than SF2 and Laravel, obviously one that people are >>>> not used to. >>>> >>>> So, has anyone constructive critics about that? Maybe others here don't >>>> even think CakePHP has a problem with it's perception? >>>> >>> >> -- >> Like Us on FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/CakePHP >> Find us on Twitter http://twitter.com/CakePHP >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "CakePHP" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to cake-php+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to cake...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- Like Us on FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/CakePHP Find us on Twitter http://twitter.com/CakePHP --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
