Hello I''m just wondering what are the main pros and cons for choosing RoR instead of PHP. I quess there are lot of ex-php programmers :) -- v3rb0
One is a framework and one a language. It''s not really easy to compare the two directly. The major benefit of PHP is its ubiquity. It''s incredibly easy to host and to find developers with extensive experience to modify and maintain legacy applications. There are frameworks for PHP that you might want to study in order to do a comparison to Rails, such as Mojavi. On Aug 5, 2005, at 6:00 AM, v3rb0 wrote:> Hello > > I''m just wondering what are the main pros and cons for choosing RoR > instead of PHP. I quess there are lot of ex-php programmers :) > > > -- > v3rb0 > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
As Toby pointed out comparing RoR to PHP is like comparing apples to oranges. What you might want to try it comparing RoR to PHP Cake (http://www.cakephp.org) which is a PHP take on Rails. Dylan.
<noflame> PHP support for OO is weak, you need to do a huge amount of code by hand to do trivial things (where in rails you can scaffold and personalize after), you don''t have a good ORM, and you don''t have ruby :) Yes, PHP have some interesting frameworks and a HUGE amount of code on the internet, but Rails is *really* more productive. </noflame> -- Dirceu Pereira Tiegs MSN: dirceutiegs-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org | ICQ: 283695734 Blog: http://dirceu.blogspot.com | Links: http://del.icio.us/dirceu
Speaking literally yes, framework and language can''t be compared - my bad. Actually I''m searching some good points for convincing my boss to give green light for trying RoR in next project instead of homegrown PHP framework. For now i''ll talk about testing suit, active record and lot of quickly generatable things who can be optimised afterwards as needed. v. On 05/08/05, Dylan Egan <dylan.egan-sFbbPxZDHXw0n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> wrote:> As Toby pointed out comparing RoR to PHP is like comparing apples to > oranges. > > What you might want to try it comparing RoR to PHP Cake > (http://www.cakephp.org) which is a PHP take on Rails. > > Dylan. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- v3rb0
Try DB_DataObject and DB_DataObject_FormBuilder from pear.php.net On 8/5/05, Dirceu Pereira Tiegs <dirceutiegs-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> <noflame> > > PHP support for OO is weak, you need to do a huge amount of code by > hand to do trivial things (where in rails you can scaffold and > personalize after), you don''t have a good ORM, and you don''t have ruby > :) > > Yes, PHP have some interesting frameworks and a HUGE amount of code on > the internet, but Rails is *really* more productive. > > </noflame> > > -- > Dirceu Pereira Tiegs > MSN: dirceutiegs-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org | ICQ: 283695734 > Blog: http://dirceu.blogspot.com | Links: http://del.icio.us/dirceu > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
The support for OO in PHP5 is much better than 4. It''s still no Java, but it''s much better. Frameworks and libraries, of course, can mean that it doesn''t take a huge amount of code to do trivial things -- but this is the framework vs. language bit. Rails can boost productivity -- especially for prototyping, and the complete suite of tools is nice. There are still some big gaps in the Rails framework itself, but I think lots of us are working on patches to help address those things. On Aug 5, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Dirceu Pereira Tiegs wrote:> <noflame> > > PHP support for OO is weak, you need to do a huge amount of code by > hand to do trivial things (where in rails you can scaffold and > personalize after), you don''t have a good ORM, and you don''t have ruby > :) > > Yes, PHP have some interesting frameworks and a HUGE amount of code on > the internet, but Rails is *really* more productive. > > </noflame> > > -- > Dirceu Pereira Tiegs > MSN: dirceutiegs-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org | ICQ: 283695734 > Blog: http://dirceu.blogspot.com | Links: http://del.icio.us/dirceu > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Instead of attempting to sell your boss on the framework, language, and server requirements for a production project -- something I consider a bit naive given that you haven''t use Rails enough to know how to evaluate it -- why not use it to build or rebuild an internal application? If you sell your boss on something with which you aren''t intimately familiar based solely on hype, you''re putting yourself in a precarious position. On Aug 5, 2005, at 8:17 AM, v3rb0 wrote:> Speaking literally yes, framework and language can''t be compared - my > bad. Actually I''m searching some good points for convincing my boss > to give green light for trying RoR in next project instead of > homegrown PHP framework. > For now i''ll talk about testing suit, active record and lot of quickly > generatable things who can be optimised afterwards as needed. > > v. > > On 05/08/05, Dylan Egan <dylan.egan-sFbbPxZDHXw0n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> As Toby pointed out comparing RoR to PHP is like comparing apples to >> oranges. >> >> What you might want to try it comparing RoR to PHP Cake >> (http://www.cakephp.org) which is a PHP take on Rails. >> >> Dylan. >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> > > > -- > v3rb0 > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Toby Boudreaux wrote:> The support for OO in PHP5 is much better than 4. It''s still no Java, > but it''s much better.Slightly offtopic but since I had a glance at Ruby, I would not state that Java is more OO than Ruby is.. rather the opposite. Kristof
I''m not sure what you mean. Who stated that Java is more OO than Ruby? On Aug 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Kristof Jozsa wrote:> Toby Boudreaux wrote: > >> The support for OO in PHP5 is much better than 4. It''s still no >> Java, but it''s much better. >> > > Slightly offtopic but since I had a glance at Ruby, I would not > state that Java is more OO than Ruby is.. rather the opposite. > > Kristof > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >