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

Laravel 5 released

laravel-news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Laravel 5 released

#81

Post by iN7h33nD »

raziel2p wrote: post #75
Ronsenshi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Joining and querying efficiently on relations is probably the most obvious omission.

Do you mean these two things?

http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/eloquent#relationships

http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/eloquent#querying-relations

> EDIT and this for making them effective

http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/eloquent#eager-loading

Re: Laravel 5 released

#82

Post by mmccaff »

ianhawes wrote: post #58

Having 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…

I don't know the reasoning behind the decision to not use Whoops by default, but I considered the beautiful and informative error pages to be a nice trait of Laravel that I will miss. It is also a feature that almost anyone who has used Laravel has come in contact with, so I am sure that it will be widely missed. I remember a non-developer coworker who was using Laravel 4.x for the first time commenting on how it was one of their favorite features.

Adding it back should be trivial http://mattstauffer.co/blog/bringing-whoops-back-to-laravel-...

I usually add the Raven PHP client [https://github.com/getsentry/raven-php] to report errors to Sentry when starting a new project and will likely do the same with Whoops by default.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#83

Post by Gigablah »

_broody wrote: post #64
tomcorrigan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Much of the complexity in Symfony comes from its "dependency injection" component (a misnomer, really) and the inclusion of annotation magic in the standard framework distribution.

These days, I'd rather use the basic components (e.g. Symfony's HttpFoundation library) with something like league/container (formerly orno/di) and a simple routing library like nikic/FastRoute.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#84

Post by debaserab2 »

Deal-breakers for me with Laravel:

- Blade templating language. I don't need yet another templating syntax to learn, especially one that isn't analogous to others I know and are common among other frameworks.

- I really can't imagine going back to an active record based ORM. I've learned too many hard performance lessons from Doctrine1 and rails at this point.

- Facade/proxy pattern based classes. I think as they are implemented in the actual framework, these are done correctly. However, I think the userland understanding of this pattern is often lacking and leads to a lot of glorified singletons that are some how touted as acceptable because they call them facade/proxy based.

In the giant lineup of frameworks, ranging from something as simple as SlimPHP or silex, all the way to enterprise targeted frameworks like Zend Framework 2, I just don't see why I'd ever pick Laravel as the go-to solution in any use case.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#85

Post by Ronsenshi »

raziel2p wrote: post #75
Ronsenshi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Joining and querying efficiently on relations is probably the most obvious omission.

Never had any problems with Eloquent relations and querying on them. I find them very powerful.

Yes, they aren't done in a single query format - which should be a problem since it may be faster just to do two simple queries then one complex.

Besides that relations could be eager loaded for when you have number of items in first query and want to load relations to all of them. With eager loading you won't have problems with N + 1 queries.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#86

Post by dubcanada »

rdoherty wrote: post #47

After 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…

I am going to have to completely disagree with you. I have been using it for several years now and I have nothing but good things to say about it.

The ORM is basic yes, but that's the purpose of it. If you want a bigger one do what you do with Symfony and use Doctrine or something more robust.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#87

Post by josegonzalez »

raziel2p wrote: post #54
rdoherty wrote: post #47

After 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…

It strikes me as a project that should've been an internal framework, not a public one. Too many things break and change constantly. Rapid release cycles is a good thing for smaller libraries with specific tasks, but I expect a framework to remain largely unchanged (except bugfixes, of course) for longer periods of time. Unless Taylor gives away control of the project, I don't see it happening. It'll keep being a pop…

As a Core developer of CakePHP, I'll tell you that the community at large loves major releases more than they like stability. Something about using the newest toy really gets a lot of people going. We actually have had quite a few developers tell us our framework is dead, despite ongoing development on a new major release and monthly minor/patch releases for the current stable line for 3+ years.

I can't comment on Laravel though, as my only experience with it was a negative one. I had a rejected bugfix for which Taylor decided to ignore the PHP documentation I linked to verifying the issue, and several other developers saying they have experienced the issue/would like to see my PR merged in.

I think it'll stay a popular PHP framework until the next popular framework comes around (CI => FuelPHP => Laravel).

Re: Laravel 5 released

#88

Post by JonoBB »

debaserab2 wrote: post #84

Deal-breakers for me with Laravel: - Blade templating language. I don't need yet another templating syntax to learn, especially one that isn't analogous to others I know and are common among other frameworks. - I really can't imagine going back to an active record based ORM. I've learned too many hard performance lessons from Doctrine1 and rails at this point. - Facade/proxy pattern based classes. I think as they are…

Those don't have to be deal-breakers.

- You don't have to use Blade. Use Twig or Smarty or whatever you want

- You don't have to use Eloquent. Use raw queries or Doctrine or whatever you want

- You don't have to use Facades - use the IOC container to get whatever you want

Its so easy to plug-and-play with composer, and there are so many other features to laravel.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#89

Post by kowdermeister »

dubcanada wrote: post #86
rdoherty wrote: post #47

After 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…

I am going to have to completely disagree with you. I have been using it for several years now and I have nothing but good things to say about it. The ORM is basic yes, but that's the purpose of it. If you want a bigger one do what you do with Symfony and use Doctrine or something more robust.

I just tried to two days ago and did a complete project with it. Auth, CRUD, file management, etc. It's an instant love for me. Docs is mostly ok, Google provides instant answers. I'm happy to ditch CodeIgniter for this.

Re: Laravel 5 released

#90

Post by smacktoward »

vruiz wrote: post #4

Looks like some links are broken. For example http://laravel.com/docs/authentication redirects to -> http://laravel.com/docs/4.2/authentication which is 404.

It wouldn't be the first time. When Laravel 4 came out, they decided the best way to announce that would be to make all the old URLs for Laravel 3 documentation point to Laravel 4 pages, and then take down the Laravel 3 documentation completely.

Yes. Completely. Not just "put it in a less prominent place" or "hide it six levels deep in the directory hierarchy" -- it was gone, overnight. Poof! Vanished.

I happened to be in the middle of a Laravel 3 project at the time, so the sudden removal of all documentation for the version I was working with was more than a little painful.

Post reply on HN