Bad to see, Laravel still doesn't have an LTS version. Upgrading is a pain.
Laravel 5 released
61–70 of 114 posts
Re: Laravel 5 released
#62Having watched Laravel 5 throughout development, I'm personally unhappy with the fact that most of the nice features of Laravel have been removed. For example, the default version of Laravel 4.x shipped with the "Whoops" PHP stack trace view, which is far superior to the L5-default Symfony stack trace view. Other features were removed too, including the HTML library. Blade tags were changed for no reason. Overall, it…
FUD.
The "architecture" change is the bootstrap repository, which has a new folder structure. I know, scary stuff! Folders!
The "architecture" has some enhancements to middleware and fleshing out events/commands to a "command bus". Basically, you get more sugar on top of the (mostly) same architecture.
Whoops caused a lot of headaches behind the scenes, and did stupid things like convert ALL http error responses to 500, even on a 404 error (which showed up in Whoops, as HTTP errors are converted to exceptions within Symfony's HTTP stack).
Blade tags have one new tag, and the old ones still works.
This point might be the subjective one - HTML library. HTML libraries create an enormous amount of support for people's edge cases and generally are better pushed out as a third-party add on to suit your needs. The upgrade guide explains how you can add them back in if you want. https://github.com/illuminate/html
Re: Laravel 5 released
#63Having watched Laravel 5 throughout development, I'm personally unhappy with the fact that most of the nice features of Laravel have been removed. For example, the default version of Laravel 4.x shipped with the "Whoops" PHP stack trace view, which is far superior to the L5-default Symfony stack trace view. Other features were removed too, including the HTML library. Blade tags were changed for no reason. Overall, it…
HTML library is now optional, more info on that here also here you will find why the blade tags have changed: http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/upgrade#upgrade-5.0
Whoops stack trace: https://laracasts.com/discuss/channels/general-discussion/wh...
Can we stop complaining? I see a ton of improvements and nicer features than the ones you are talking about in this new release.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I tried SF2 I found it to be a terrible, Java-like, pile of abstractions. This might work for some people, but if you prefer thinking about business logic (as opposed to "where do I extend this IoC dependency container so that it can find my ControllerFactory), it's not for you. It left me bitter. Yii is supposed to be nicer, I heard from colleagues, but I left PHP programming the moment I saw the opportunity so…
Extending the IoC container?? A ControllerFactory?? You never do anything like that in Symfony. The thing I appreciate most about Symfony2 is how it enforces good design patterns.
One might argue that the SOLID principles applied in Symphony and inherited by Laravel are in fact anti-patterns which only serve to add massive cognitive overhead. They've wrecked countless Java projects over the years and are now going to do PHP the same favor.
There's even less reason for a scripting language with a GIL to be saddled with this level of complexity, than there is for Java.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#65After using Laravel 4 for an internal company tool I have a hard time recommending it (sadly, I was hopeful). I found the docs to be uneven in quality/scope, some key features (mostly around the ORM) missing and the 'feel' to be slightly off. It's hard to quantify, but I have used CakePHP, Yii, Rails (0.9 through 4), Django and plenty of home-grown 'frameworks'. From all those the most cohesive and understandable to…
Maybe it's a matter of taste? I have worked with Symfony2, Zend Framework, Yii, Kohana and Laravel and find Laravel the most intuitive to work with. I like that you can start using it for very rapid prototyping and refactor into more complicated structures as the application grows.
Totally agree. I think that Symfony2 is a pain in the ass.
Laravel lets you have something working really fast. Then you can improve the code later on.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeffrey Way is the best. Back at Tuts+ I'd only watch his courses—no one else was as good of a teacher as him. Laracasts is even better.
His 30 days to learn jQuery was a critical growing tool for me - if you're at all interested in low-level front end JS, definitely check it out. Its free.
That's actually the first course I took by him. I took a few of his other HTML/CSS courses and I am doing PHP Fundamentals (to get into Laravel later) because of the "jQuery and PHP" parts of the 30 days course. All good stuff.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#67After using Laravel 4 for an internal company tool I have a hard time recommending it (sadly, I was hopeful). I found the docs to be uneven in quality/scope, some key features (mostly around the ORM) missing and the 'feel' to be slightly off. It's hard to quantify, but I have used CakePHP, Yii, Rails (0.9 through 4), Django and plenty of home-grown 'frameworks'. From all those the most cohesive and understandable to…
What could be those ORM features that you're missing? I've been working with Laravel 4 since before it had documentation when I had to go through all of the code to understand how it works and I know that besides what is described in documentation - there's a number of features that are available, but not listed.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that Symfony is well engineered, not over engineered. The fact that Laravel is already at version 5 demonstrates just how poorly engineered it was in the first place.
That's an odd argument. Is Rails poorly designed because it's had 4 versions, or Django because it's had 8? Seems much more to do with the pace of the development than the architectural quality, to me.
EDIT: It depends on what the versioning represents.
I don't think there have been as many breaking changes in Rails vs Laravel, and Rails at v4 has been over ... 9-10 years? Laravel is < 6 years old, with, from what it seems to be, rather significant philosophical changes between major versions. Doesn't mean it's bad, but perhaps closer to using gentoo vs centos.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's a matter of taste? I have worked with Symfony2, Zend Framework, Yii, Kohana and Laravel and find Laravel the most intuitive to work with. I like that you can start using it for very rapid prototyping and refactor into more complicated structures as the application grows.
Totally agree. I think that Symfony2 is a pain in the ass. Laravel lets you have something working really fast. Then you can improve the code later on.
I concur. Symfony 2 is incredibly powerful, but at the same time incredibly messy to work with.
Re: Laravel 5 released
#70Having watched Laravel 5 throughout development, I'm personally unhappy with the fact that most of the nice features of Laravel have been removed. For example, the default version of Laravel 4.x shipped with the "Whoops" PHP stack trace view, which is far superior to the L5-default Symfony stack trace view. Other features were removed too, including the HTML library. Blade tags were changed for no reason. Overall, it…
The single maintainer just didn't want to maintain them, which goes to show how Laravel really just is his personal project that got really popular, not a community-driven effort.
IMO, that fact has helped make Laravel successful. Sometimes, software projects benefit from a benevolent dictator rather than design-by-committee.