15 ms·

You can look at a Laravel (Eloquent) model and easily see what methods it has. Nothing is hidden -- at least no more than any ORM that inherits from another cla

You can look at a Laravel (Eloquent) model and easily see what methods it has. Nothing is hidden -- at least no more than any ORM that inherits from another class which gives it functionality. As for properties -- yes, they're not explicitly described but mapped to the database schema. Other ORMs, like that in Ruby on Rails, also do not explicitly set model properties and just map to database columns. People have been upset about this forever, but everyone else has happily used Active Record and had no major issues, all while enjoying not having to add a dozen lines of code to annotate props. In both Rails and Laravel you can define accessors and setters, either overwriting the magic property for the column or defining new properties. If not seeing the properties on the model is a huge problem, there are plugins to generate them and put them in the model. My IDE gives me direct insight by inspecting the table. I'm happy not to have to write out all the props twice when there's no tangible performance issue and I've never had any other problems with dynamically getting the model attributes from the schema. You're taking a matter of taste and context-based tradeoffs and acting like those reflect unchallengeable principles. Symfony is a great piece of software. So is Laravel. Github numbers alone will show you how compelling so many developers find Laravel. Of course, there will be haters who think they're all stupid, uneducated, bad, idiotic, lazy, etc. Everyone makes trade-offs based upon taste or prior decisions. Consider Django. There, you explicitly define properties, but link them to the type of database column they'll use. Then, you can generate a migration based upon the model, and then run that migration. I really like that pattern. Removes tedium of writing migrations, preserves ability to modify the migrations, and makes things explicit. When I used SQL Alchemy in Python, it completely allowed me to not write migrations, only models. That was very nice, until it wasn't. But then I just had to do a few things manually -- a reasonable price to pay for saving a bunch of time in the other 19/20 of cases. These are all just different ways of getting to the same place. Each has benefits, each has drawbacks, the extent of each which will depend on the project and the developers' tastes.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Symfony is a great piece of software. So is Laravel. And to be clear, Laravel is a piece of Symfony software, and a good example of what you can do with Symfony packages and a bit of opinion. There are 13 Symfony dependencies in https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/9.x/composer.json https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/9.x/composer.json alone, and many of the Laravel packages listed in there also depend on them; the Laravel Request class extends Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request, the Response class extends Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response, etc.
- francislavoie 4y ago
  It's a lot more than "a bit of opinion". It's a huge framework with tons of unique and original features. You're being very reductive. Yes it does use Symfony components for some core functionality, but that's just a small part of what Laravel offers.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    I think we largely agree; I just think "Laravel or Symfony" is somewhat a false dilemma because of this. You can build your own system on Symfony libraries... or you can use Laravel's system that's heavily built on Symfony libraries, with a lot of the plumbing done for you.
- pocketsand 4y ago
  Technology companies routinely use/license technology from other companies in their products. If, for example, Apple relies upon Samsung for displays and memory in their laptops, it does not follow that you're actually buying a Samsung laptop. In any event, Laravel has never been shy about its debt to Symfony.
bakugo 4y ago
The only benefit you've mentioned is writing less code. Which just proves my original point about Laravel being for people who want to get things done as fast as possible with the minimum effort possible, regardless of how much sense it makes. >Consider Django. There, you explicitly define properties, but link them to the type of database column they'll use. Then, you can generate a migration based upon the model, and then run that migration. I really like that pattern. Removes tedium of writing migrations, preserves ability to modify the migrations, and makes things explicit. This is exactly what Symfony with Doctrine does, and it's the correct way to do it. The benefits vastly outweigh the "drawback" of having to write slightly more code.
- pocketsand 4y ago
  When I work in Django, instead of other frameworks I use, I think "I like this more, I like this less; this works better for me in these circumstances, this does not." But I've never felt it made any sense at all to pronounce one as objectively better than another. In most cases, it is a matter of taste and tradeoffs that vary based upon circumstance. You can keep saying "this is the correct way" with all the conviction in the world, but it won't turn matters of opinion and circumstance into universal fact.
  - Seb-C 4y ago
    It's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a fact that the data mapper pattern (like doctrine) allows for a better and more maintainable architecture than active record. Separating the data access layer, the models and the business logic (basically a 3-tier architecture) is a widely used and proven industry standard to keep a sane, maintainable and testable codebase. Active record ORMs like Eloquent mixes everything in a single layer (business logic in the model events, data accesses are done by the models), but as soon as you reach a significant level of complexity, it is unmaintainable. Even Laravel codebases that grow in complexity often ends-up wrapping Eloquent in a repository layer.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Symfony is a great piece of software. So is Laravel. And to be clear, Laravel is a piece of Symfony software, and a good example of what you can do with Symfony packages and a bit of opinion. There are 13 Symfony dependencies in https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/9.x/composer.json https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/9.x/composer.json alone, and many of the Laravel packages listed in there also depend on them; the Laravel Request class extends Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request, the Response class extends Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response, etc.

francislavoie 4y ago
It's a lot more than "a bit of opinion". It's a huge framework with tons of unique and original features. You're being very reductive. Yes it does use Symfony components for some core functionality, but that's just a small part of what Laravel offers.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  I think we largely agree; I just think "Laravel or Symfony" is somewhat a false dilemma because of this. You can build your own system on Symfony libraries... or you can use Laravel's system that's heavily built on Symfony libraries, with a lot of the plumbing done for you.
pocketsand 4y ago
Technology companies routinely use/license technology from other companies in their products. If, for example, Apple relies upon Samsung for displays and memory in their laptops, it does not follow that you're actually buying a Samsung laptop. In any event, Laravel has never been shy about its debt to Symfony.

bakugo 4y ago

The only benefit you've mentioned is writing less code. Which just proves my original point about Laravel being for people who want to get things done as fast as possible with the minimum effort possible, regardless of how much sense it makes. >Consider Django. There, you explicitly define properties, but link them to the type of database column they'll use. Then, you can generate a migration based upon the model, and then run that migration. I really like that pattern. Removes tedium of writing migrations, preserves ability to modify the migrations, and makes things explicit. This is exactly what Symfony with Doctrine does, and it's the correct way to do it. The benefits vastly outweigh the "drawback" of having to write slightly more code.

pocketsand 4y ago
When I work in Django, instead of other frameworks I use, I think "I like this more, I like this less; this works better for me in these circumstances, this does not." But I've never felt it made any sense at all to pronounce one as objectively better than another. In most cases, it is a matter of taste and tradeoffs that vary based upon circumstance. You can keep saying "this is the correct way" with all the conviction in the world, but it won't turn matters of opinion and circumstance into universal fact.
- Seb-C 4y ago
  It's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a fact that the data mapper pattern (like doctrine) allows for a better and more maintainable architecture than active record. Separating the data access layer, the models and the business logic (basically a 3-tier architecture) is a widely used and proven industry standard to keep a sane, maintainable and testable codebase. Active record ORMs like Eloquent mixes everything in a single layer (business logic in the model events, data accesses are done by the models), but as soon as you reach a significant level of complexity, it is unmaintainable. Even Laravel codebases that grow in complexity often ends-up wrapping Eloquent in a repository layer.