Had my pure PHP web app rejected on a market platform because I didn't use a framework..

  • 0
    @No-one no their comment was lack of framework. Plus I love PHP and it's a dope language for simple to intermediate dynamic applications
  • 3
    Move the functions to a framework.php file?
    Half of my apps in php don't justify using and learning a framework and hope it will be maintained in the future, so I'm totally with you on keep the functionality tight, usually a core.php, a logic.php and a config.php with lots of reused code on core.
  • 4
    @No-one Says the guy wearing a Java shirt! 😂😉
  • 0
    @No-one I honestly don't know how you can think that, but hey to each his own.
  • 1
    I have no problem with frameworkless web backends, as long as the structure of the project is well designed (some kind of MVC like separation) and safe (Request validations, SQL injection protection) and conforms to standards and best practices (namespaced classes, reasonable test coverage).

    At that point you might as well use at least a tiny framework like Silex or Lumen.
  • 0
    @No-one First response is gold.
  • 1
    Just include a framework but never actually use it.
  • 0
    @Jop- Good for Java. Let's not turn this into a why Java sucks/doesn't suck thread.
  • 2
    @No-one sorry, as soon as you said "Java" I got a memory leak and machine froze
  • 1
    @No-one as much as I hate PHP I will always hate Java more. Java needs to die amidst a hailstorm of a thousand flaming arrows.
  • 0
    @Jop- Why's it shit?
  • 1
    @Jop- If you declare your variables with var then you indeed don't know javascript

    What about code reuse and organisation is so hard? It has functions, it has objects, it has inheritance tho you shouldn't use it (in any language). What more would you like? Oh namespaces? They exist, via modules. Anything else?

    And how is using a framework bad? Is it a sign of a good programmer if he constantly reinvents the wheel to do the most mundane things? No. Use what's been created for you, no need to redo it other than to pat yourself on the back saying "I can do it too!"

    What's cool about JavaScript is it's flexibility and openness. I know, not limiting the developer will bring bad code from bad developers but it will also enable the great developers do so great stuff. What other languages have so many derivatives like JavaScript with its typescript, coffescript, dart and hell even React's jsx? It just goes to show that the language does not limit the developer like many do.
  • 1
    @Jop- (ran out of characters)
    If you need walls and boundaries to keep you in check then by all means use something else. But if you can function efficiently in freedom then JavaScript is perfect for you.
    That is of course if your problem falls within the domain of JavaScript. Don't go writing game engines or statistical computations in JavaScript, it's not made for that and there are better options like R (for stats) for example
  • 0
    @Froot Wish I could give you a few more ++'s for that! I couldn't agree more (except that I think using too many frameworks can be just as bad as constantly reinventing the wheel, especially when the wheel can be reinvented in just a couple lines of code anyway, but we can have that discussion another time). 😉
  • 0
    @theScientist Ye probably, I kinda got into my flow 😊

    @Jop- But I've said all I wanted now so there's no point in discussing it further. It's not like I'm going to convert you into a JS lover anyway, it's just going to be a drawn out shitshow
  • 1
    @Jop- There are two camps on this: those on the JS side generally believe that the benefits of fewer restrictions outweigh the benefits of more restrictions, while the Java side is generally the opposite.

    A static type system is by its very nature a restriction. It is restricting what you can do in the language with the intention of eliminating an entire class of mistakes that could otherwise occur in a dynamic language.

    And for what it is, it has its pros: there are fewer nooks and crannies for subtle bugs to hide in. But at the same time, it really is a restriction and static type systems can often prevent you from doing things that would have been possible in a dynamic language.

    If you just use the language to do typical and well-defined things, you won't really see the limits of a type system; it's only when you try to get creative and do clever things that the language designers may not have considered that type systems tend to get in the way.
  • 0
    @Jop- I wish more languages had "soft" type systems. I think TypeScript is another. You get the compile-time benefits of a static type system but the runtime capabilities of a dynamic language, should you need them.
  • 0
    @No-one it's not about me being able to program in Java. It's every app I've ever used made in Java has always had a slow but steady climb in memory usage. Once it took that memory it never gave it back either without relaunching the app. That's for desktop apps. Then comes running Java apps in the browser. Memory leak.... Check. Oh your version of Java is .001 off from the version used to make this app, either gets tons of errors or just displays all out of whack. No thanks. Lol. That's too much of a headache. I won't even install Java on my machines anymore.
  • 0
    @devios1 I don’t think static type systems can really be viewed as restrictive. You can literally do anything you can do with a dynamic language, it just might require a little more code. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks though.

    This is coming from someone that loves Js and Ruby, but really prefers alternatives like Elm and Crystal because of the type system and the amount of safety that comes with it.
  • 2
    @itsmill3rtime Java apps in browser? What is this? 2001? There are no excuses to use java or any other plugin to display your content any more. Tho Java applets were fun for drive bys. The thing was so insecure you could run anything in the users machine from the web page, insane, but fun to play around with.

    But yea, I'm glad java, flash and other plugins are gone from the browser or on their way out. Whenever I see a site that asks me to get a plugin to display their content I just switch to another site.
  • 0
    @dev0urer Oh really? Try implementing duck typing in a static language and I think you'll quickly learn they are not as capable as you think.

    Static type systems are like training wheels: they prevent you from making the most painful mistakes, but don't let you do any cool tricks.
  • 0
    @devios1 duck typing is a good way to get runtime errors, but there are several languages that basically allow duck typing, but won’t compile if your method call won’t work.

    Take Crystal for example. It’s statically typed, but typing is only necessary if the compiler can’t logically figure out what type something should be.

    Type systems are only training wheels in the same sense that airbags are training wheels.
Add Comment