3 ms·

I think the fact that the starting point for php is an html page is a big deal. Whether or not its a good thing to replicate that (and things like that) is deba

by netcan 14y ago

I think the fact that the starting point for php is an html page is a big deal. Whether or not its a good thing to replicate that (and things like that) is debatable but its not just about cutting and pasting from Google.

rhizome 14y ago
That's an important point, that Rails presumes database backing, and dynamic sites are inherently more complicated that static pages.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  I think the point is that you can ease in to that with PHP - you can be as dynamic or not as you want. Many (many!) people started with PHP just to add a contact form to a site, or make a dynamic copyright date in a footer (or just to do common footers with include()). Rails/Grails/Play/CF/etc assume you want to do a lot more, and force you to do things their way - integrating a tech in to an existing site is really problematic outside of PHP, because most other webdev tech is 'full stack'.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    We don't disagree.
evilduck 14y ago
You can write PHP-style "the file is the html page" code in Ruby with .erb files and mod_ruby. It's no harder to set up than PHP (granted though, most people who abuse PHP like that can't/don't do their own server configuration). I can't think of anyone though that promotes that method of building websites anymore though, even PHP proponents advocate some flavor of web framework. It just happens to be an easy entry point for using PHP, and once a new developer has built some project momentum for the first time, they're reluctant to start over with something new.
grey-area 14y ago
Of course, and that starting point encapsulates much that is good (easy to extend HTML by mixing in some code, quick to get started, zero deployment hassles) and bad (easy to mix content and code, easy to start without thinking about the bigger picture or planning your app, easy to make mistakes like exposing your db password to the world because of a permissions issue say) about PHP.

by netcan 14y ago

rhizome 14y ago

That's an important point, that Rails presumes database backing, and dynamic sites are inherently more complicated that static pages.

mgkimsal 14y ago
I think the point is that you can ease in to that with PHP - you can be as dynamic or not as you want. Many (many!) people started with PHP just to add a contact form to a site, or make a dynamic copyright date in a footer (or just to do common footers with include()). Rails/Grails/Play/CF/etc assume you want to do a lot more, and force you to do things their way - integrating a tech in to an existing site is really problematic outside of PHP, because most other webdev tech is 'full stack'.
- rhizome 14y ago
  We don't disagree.

evilduck 14y ago

You can write PHP-style "the file is the html page" code in Ruby with .erb files and mod_ruby. It's no harder to set up than PHP (granted though, most people who abuse PHP like that can't/don't do their own server configuration). I can't think of anyone though that promotes that method of building websites anymore though, even PHP proponents advocate some flavor of web framework. It just happens to be an easy entry point for using PHP, and once a new developer has built some project momentum for the first time, they're reluctant to start over with something new.

grey-area 14y ago

Of course, and that starting point encapsulates much that is good (easy to extend HTML by mixing in some code, quick to get started, zero deployment hassles) and bad (easy to mix content and code, easy to start without thinking about the bigger picture or planning your app, easy to make mistakes like exposing your db password to the world because of a permissions issue say) about PHP.