Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go with PHP

gowithphp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 532 posts

Re: Go with PHP

#401

Post by 0xblinq »

jusssi wrote: post #292
dgb23 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone's still hating on PHP in 2023 it makes me wonder if they've been focused on more exotic technology because they were looking to pad their resume with more expensive skills, build science projects for their own amusement vs. what the business needed, etc. etc. Red flag. I get that you are arguing from personal experiences, people you met and worked with. But this statement lacks context and nuance. There…

> magic framework stuff that Laravel/Symphony provide The magic in these frameworks is evil, and likely a big part in ruining PHP's reputation. Laravel in particular hides way too much stuff behind magic, and when it goes wrong you find yourself sifting through OOP-obfuscated layers of framework and libraries just to find out how exactly your controller is called.

I honestly prefer community supported battle proven production ready "magic" than what most product developer under a deadline cobble together. In my experience the problem you describe happened like... 2 times in my 20 years career. And I literally spend my entire days fighting my own colleagues very explicit smartnesses

Re: Go with PHP

#402

Post by 0xblinq »

Alifatisk wrote: post #356
cutler wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rails does a pretty good job.

I've tried Laravel, it's a beautiful framework. But I see no reason to switch from Rails, it's a beast.

Hi!

I'm looking for advice on how Rails vs Laravel compare (as I'll have to pick one of them soon for a project). Assuming the same knowledge and familiarity on both of them, why would you prefer Rails over Laravel? Thanks!

Re: Go with PHP

#403

Post by marcrosoft »

No thanks. Those code examples are full of indirection and the bottom example reminds me of the object nested spaghetti mess of large PHP frameworks.

Just because code reads well doesn’t mean you can understand easily what it actually does.

Re: Go with PHP

#404

Post by latchkey »

Gigachad wrote: post #321
jjice wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes. Is there a static analysis tool for Ruby (along the lines of MyPy or PHP Stan) that could have caught this? Also, out of curiosity, are all of those tests hand written, or is there some generation in there?

All hand written over 10 years. They catch a lot of stuff, but stuff still slips through. Generally the area of the breakage even has tests over it but didn’t manage to catch the particular issue or they had mocked out parts which ended up being the issue. I can’t see how static analysts could solve it really.

imho, this is a huge reason why ruby fell off the popularity charts over time. i predicted this pretty early on and got a lot of flack from the ruby community as a result.

nobody wanted to write tests to ensure that something would compile... let alone tell you what 'type' an object was. i can't tell you how many hours i wasted watching my pair trying to figure out what 'type' an object was, by using `print`. luckily i was working as a very expensive consultant.

of course these things could be bolted onto ruby, but it never felt natural. running 40k tests to see if something compiles is absurd, takes forever and results in super brittle tests that have to be reworked when code changes. often people would use meta programming in the tests, which only made figuring out the errors even harder since the line numbers would be all wonky in traces.

sorry you're saddled with that legacy of well intention and poor execution.

Re: Go with PHP

#406

Post by sneek_ »

EGreg wrote: post #377
sneek_ wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I made the Payload site Apparently it triggers you. I don't claim that it's perfect by any means (actually I think some of what you're saying is right).

Sorry if my criticism sounded harsh. I was not triggered by it, but simply going into depth why I do not think I should spend time making my site look like that. My response was simply a reaction to the scope of criticism and the claim that this is the new best practices. Because the other site was held up as an example of what I should spend days emulating and making my site look like, the sheer time investment and…

Don't worry, I've been a designer for 15 years and I know intimately that I can't please everyone.

It's hard to get under my skin. That's actually I think what your takeaway should be here - - you can't please everyone, but you should take all feedback as valid and try and deliver something that solves for your problem the most widely.

If someone feels something, then they felt it. Including your reaction to my site, and the others' reactions to your site.

Re: Go with PHP

#407

Post by njovin »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #335
njovin wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind elaborating? I can see how the user's ability to 'place-order' might be rejected between the access check and the order creation but that would be an extraordinary edge-case that does not need to be accounted for in 99% of applications. If you're developing an application that needs to account for such an edge case you could easily do so with an insert w/ join method on the Order model. The author isn't t…

That's really the point. The code is deceptively simple for a whiz-bang "look how easy this is!" kinda presentation but the reality is that it's not useful for anything but a toy web store. Maybe it's fine that it only works 99% of the time if you're just trading Pokemon points, but not when you're dealing with people's money.

I'd argue that a vast majority of web applications are not "dealing with people's money" so there's not a need to code for such cases.

The right tool for the right job, etc. etc.

Re: Go with PHP

#408

Post by qprofyeh »

marcrosoft wrote: post #403

No thanks. Those code examples are full of indirection and the bottom example reminds me of the object nested spaghetti mess of large PHP frameworks. Just because code reads well doesn’t mean you can understand easily what it actually does.

There's joke amongst PHP companies that modern PHP has finally, completely become Java.

Re: Go with PHP

#409

Post by topicseed »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #354
topicseed wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NPM/JS/TS hellhole is real. Moved on from it a couple of years ago, and today I switch between Go and PHP (WP custom stuff). Obviously Go and PHP are two very different languages but they bring me peace in ways JS never did. Especially when reopening older projects.

It's goofy to me how many devs think the art of writing software necessitates continually updating dependencies to have things not break. You're running in place! You could be working on something new that generates value, or adding features to what you have in that time.

To me, dependency management is a part of software maintenance and it's not always just 'running in place'. Updates bring security patches (sometimes not publicly explained or disclosed), performance improvements, and new features that could enhance the value generated by the said software.

Re: Go with PHP

#410

Post by jsd1982 »

neurostimulant wrote: post #384
o1y32 wrote: post #307

"500,000 orders per month" That's like, what, 12 orders per minute? Is this meant to be impressive or something? I bet any language run on a modern laptop can handle that.

For every request that generates an order, there are probably a dozen or more requests that doesn't generate any order. Also, OS these days are so bloated a $6 vps will barely has any memory left on startup before you actually run any workload on it.

try a nanode from linode. $5/mo and as bare-bones as they come. no bloat there.
Post reply on HN