Drupal Competes As a Framework, Unofficially 178
tgeller writes "Drupal developer Ben Buckman attended the BostonPHP Framework Bake-Off with the hopes of pitting the CMS against CakePHP, Symfony, Zend, and CodeIgniter. He was told that he couldn't because Drupal is 'not a framework,' a response he felt was 'coder-purist snobbery ("it's not a framework if you build any of it in a UI").' So he decided to unofficially compete in the back of the room by accepting the challenge of building a job-posting app in 30 minutes, while the official competitors did the same from the stage. He recorded the results, which are impressive. In the process he raised the question: What is a framework, anyway?"
Steak (Score:5, Insightful)
I’d call Drupal a tool with a framework for extending said tool rather than a straight framework.
Why? Just what my gut tells me. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter (save for contest qualification purposes I guess). Use what does the job for you.
obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
programming language fans [github.com]
I never thought I'd see the day (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
But seriously, if you're using PHP and you start worrying about The Rules, you've thrown out your only reason for using PHP at all.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:3)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
if you are using PHP and want purity with the ease of scripting language, you seriously need to jump ship.
Whoops, I think you meant to link to this site [slashdot.org]
FAILjoke. (Score:2)
welp, I messed that joke up.
(also, am I the only one who hates that infernal "Slow down cowboy. Its been 1 minute since you last posted" nonsense :( ")
Re:FAILjoke. (Score:2)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
if you are using PHP and want purity with the ease of scripting language, you seriously need to jump ship [codehaus.org].
If someone is using PHP and is open to jumping ship, they're going to jump to another server-side web programming language. But they're idiots, so odds are it will be another steaming pile, probably ASP.net and VB.
And there's nothing "pure" about anything related to Java; only managers think all that enterprisey crap is "pure." Java is fundamentally object-oriented, and that means it has no foundation in mathematics. Groovy just takes Java's original terrible idea and doubles down on it.
And let's not even talk about the "ease of a scripting language," because that just sounds like a steaming pile of weakness.
A pure solution to web development would be Yesod [yesodweb.com] which guarantees type safety throughout your entire system using Haskell's extended Hindley-Milner type system.
There are two sorts of PHP developers (Score:5, Insightful)
The first you don't hear much about, they know the language, its stengths and its limitations and simply use it because nothing else out there can compete.
Then you got the second kind, that will be fuming at the last bit in the previous paragraph. They are forced to use it for some reason, mostly because the latest language they wish to use simply isn't supported enough. Personally, I think these are the lesser developers, the bad photographers who think if only they get a Hasselblad they will turn into a top class photographer instead of having to use this cheapo poloraid that nobody could ever possibly use to make art.
Personally I also think frameworks are silly. If you can lash up a site in 30 minutes, then the request simply isn't distinctive enough. Your site will be the Xth among thousands and fail. For the next job board site, you need to add something new, do it different, improve the process/experience else the monsterboards will simply keep the position they got.
If a wizard can write your code, you are not a developer but an assembly line worker. Granted there is a living to made at this, but please, don't call yourself a developer, you are a code monkey.
It is amusing for me to see the developers that every problem they encounter, they say: Oh if only we used tech X, this would be easy... WAY to sell your talent kiddo. It is even more amazing to see when they get away with it. Companies running everything from PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby on Rails, ASP and god knows what else, in the same company and in one extreem case, the same site... I don't care how much you hate an individual language, more then one you need a BLOODY good reason, more then two and you are insane.
But hey, keep looking for the magical language that no longer requires you to express yourself to achieve what you want. If people could write amazing code in assembly then why can't you make the language the project uses just work?
Really, if you claimed that you would be a better driver if only you had a proper car, every real driver would laugh at you. Instant poloroids are used by the pro's. Some serious art is produced with nothing but paper and charcoal.
But for a website, you need the latest tech so you can never learn all its secrets. Right.
Re:There are two sorts of PHP developers (Score:2)
absolutely.
I think its partly due to the 'programmers' not being able to do a good job int he current tech they use, so they blame it and then start looking for the next one - which is also why a lot of people insist that a complete rewrite is the only way to go. .. every time.
The flaw lies not in the "legacy" code, or the "outdated" technology but in the people involved.
While I don't give a fig for those guys, new entrants to the IT workforce are picking up the meme that "you can only do good work in the latest tech" or by getting the framework/library/language/whatever to be easier and easier instead of learning the principles and being able to do things right.
Re:There are two sorts of PHP developers (Score:3, Insightful)
> Personally I also think frameworks are silly. If you can lash up a site in 30 minutes, then the request simply isn't distinctive enough.
Let me first point out that I agree with most of what you say (which is essentially that the value of a programmer is in solving problems which have not already been solved), however:
The entire point of a framework is to give you the underlying repetitive parts so you can focus on coding the complicated domain specific pieces later.
Frameworks and libraries are everywhere. In fact, many people judge the quality of a language by the quality of the libraries they have.
Re:There are two sorts of PHP developers (Score:2)
Really, if you claimed that you would be a better driver if only you had a proper car, every real driver would laugh at you. Instant poloroids are used by the pro's. Some serious art is produced with nothing but paper and charcoal.
It's interesting that you bring up cars, because we're not talking about driving a car, but building one. When an automaker builds a car, they don't reinvent the wheel unless there's something wrong with the old one. Parts like steering columns, any kind of electrical part, garnishes like door handles and map lights, and even glove box doors might be borrowed from another vehicle. Automakers clearly comprehend the value of a framework. Indeed, a single chassis design might be sold under several different names. For a while Buick only had a single chassis for like seven names, but now they're back up to four chassis. The Hummer H2 is an optioned-up Tahoe with a goofy, unaerodynamic body.
The simple truth is that you can make one website look like a dozen different websites by doing nothing but theming. On Drupal the theme literally controls the placement of everything you see. The various elements are wrapped in HTML by the theme and styled with CSS like anyone else's site. In addition, Drupal is a not uncommon choice for the backend for sites with flash interfaces (which don't even have to look like a website) because of its strong XML support.
If people could write amazing code in assembly then why can't you make the language the project uses just work?
And for the same reason, it's interesting that you bring up assembler, since nobody is writing websites in assembler. They're all using a framework of some kind to build their website upon.
PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:3)
As a coder-purist snob myself, my opinion is that using PHP disqualifies you from being either of the three.
Honestly, why would you build a framework in a cobbled-together templating language?
So where's your closure support, Java? C++?
Even ObjectiveC and *javascript* support closures, for crying out loud (something as cool as jQuery wouldn't exist without closure support).
Functional programming is a serious win for code reuse and extensibility.
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
You get the same thing with class instances.
What's with the buzzword?
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
Because you don't get the same thing. By your logic it would be valid to say of class instances, "You get the same thing with struct pointers. What's with the buzzword?"
At best class instances offer a very limited subset of functionality that true closures provide. Worse still, even the attempt at replicating the basic functionality of a closure using class instances requires much more (and far less clear) code. In many languages the attempt implies spaghetti coding.
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
By your logic it would be valid to say of class instances, "You get the same thing with struct pointers. What's with the buzzword?"
Not really, sure a struct is effectively just a class but a pointer is not the same - or even close to the same - as an instance.
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
To hell with ALL of you puppies! (Score:2)
If you're not at LEAST using a punch card and tape system, you little spoiled weasels are doing it wrong!
I remember when we hand-encoded the bits on the drive with magnets! AND WE WERE THANKFUL FOR THE MAGNETS!
There was even a time when we had to create the interface on the screen, on the fly, by hand-aiming the gun in the back of the a CRT!
In the snow!
Up hill!
BOTH WAYS!
AND WE WERE THANKFUL FOR IT!
This precompiled code stored in binaries and libraries thing sounds dodgy. It'll never last!
Re:To hell with ALL of you puppies! (Score:2)
Re:To hell with ALL of you puppies! (Score:2)
And your audio playback lacks punch; remember to use the water smoothed igneous rocks instead of the sedimentary ones.
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
jQuery is first-and-foremost a query language that merges 3 or 4 haphazard web namespaces into a single easy to use query-syntax. It's basically xpath on steroids. This plus a wealth of library operations that allow DOM / style manipulation in a more concise manner than straight-javascript and, of course, in a cross-browser manner..
THIS is what makes jQuery cool.
This drew the attention of developers which created a wealth of modules that's helped propel it well into the future.
I don't get the closure purism (perl, python, lisp, etc). It's nothing more than wrapping a pointer to heap allocated memory in a class. E.g. C++, Java classes. Or with function-pointers in C.
function op(d) { return function(e) { return d + e; } }
var f = op(9);
for (var x = 0; x < 10; x++) { sum += f(x); }
v.s.
typedef int (*op_t)(int);
int myfunc(int x) { return 9 + x; }
op_t op = myfunc;
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) { sum += op(x); }
Not a whole lot of savings. I realize these arn't exactly the same, lamba builders allow slightly more abstraction, but from a practical matter - e.g. adaptive event handling / callbacks, it's the same deal.
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:3)
The C code is very different from the Javascript code, because the 9 is bound at compile time. What makes a certain function a closure is how you can have multiple instances of the same function with different variables bound to it.
Furthermore, since they bind to variables, changing the value of the variable outside the closure is reflected inside it:
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
True, but I've always considered this a negative.. The exact opposite of compartmentalization and data-hiding. Introducing bugs because it can cause unwanted surprise.
function foo(x) { var v = function() { return x + 9; }; for (; x > 0; x--) { } ; return v; }
Obviously contrived because I"m lazy, But in a sufficiently large function this type of bug is not uncommon. I more prefer the lisp and other immutable language style lambdas, or the Java style which requires declaring inputs final - makes it much more obvious the lack of side-effect programming.
Re:PHP supports closures (as of 5.3) (Score:2)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
Plenty of great software has been written in C++, a language I think even its inventors would admit is "cobbled together."
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
I've recently gone back to C++ programming after 12 years of perl/python/PHP/Java/bash/SQL. O.M.G. do I hate C++. All these other languages were created in response to C/C++'s common-coding pitfalls. String processing, memory management catch-22s, loose coding contracts, horrid cross-platform capability (Windows/Linux/Mac might as well have different source-code for all the damn ifdef's), insane compilation times (even on modern i7s). Since the core capabilities of C/C++ are so minimal, it's hard to link two 3rd party libraries together because they'll have incompatible base frameworks / assumptions. So every team re-invents anything the native OS/platform didn't provide.
That being said, I'd hate to see an OS written in anything other than C - but by definition, they enforce a common coding convention to all higher layers, and can't leverage 3rd party libraries, so they don't have many of these concerns.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
It's interesting you should mention the OS issue. At my day job, I develop FLOSS software in a language called Vala. It's a source compiler that compiles a Java/C#-like OOP language into C.
So you get the optimization and compatibility of C code with the pleasantness of a modern language. Perfect? No, but I think it's a step in the right direction, and you *could* program an OS in Vala.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
That being said, I'd hate to see an OS written in anything other than C
Then you'll hate this :)
Cosmos is an operating system project implemented completely in CIL compliant languages. The team is committed to using C#, however any .NET language can be used.
It does compile AOT, though.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:3)
There has been several, though no mainstream ones really. C was the first truly portable language and gave us the first portable OS (Unix) until then all OS's were written in machine code for a specific platform.
Since then though there were quite a few OS's written in other languages. Sometimes for purely academic research, sometimes just for fun, some as serious projects with real users (though granted not a great many of them).
XEROC wrote their PILOT system in Mesa.
PERQ was written in Object Pascal
The USCD P-System was written in old style non-object Pascal and in it's day was one of the best OS's available, not least because it was the most portable ever written at the time.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
As a coder-purist snob myself, my opinion is that using PHP disqualifies you from being either of the three.
Honestly, why would you build a framework in a cobbled-together templating language?
Because PHP runs _everywhere_.
Modern PHP has very little in common with the cobbled together PHP+HTML messes we used to se back in the 90s. Sure, it has it's share of warts, but if you'd care to educate yourself you would find that you can do very professional work on PHP with very professional tools. I've yet to see something that rivals Zend Studio combined with Zend Debugger when it comes to tracking down a weird issue, even on a remote server.
My favorite language is Python, but to dismiss PHP completely is simply ignorant these days.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
PHP runs everywhere on the web but it certainly doesn't run everywhere like Java or even Python. There is no such thing as a language that can do everything well but Python, for example, is a damn sight closer to that idea than PHP. PHP really is only good at making web pages and not much else.
True, but judging from TFA the whole thing was about web frameworks, IMHO. :)
So I guess I should clarify: PHP will run on almost any available web hosting out there. Big potential user base = Good Thing.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:3)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
> If you can't handle allocating and managing memory, you don't deserve the right to call yourself a programmer.
Part of the point of Java was that programmers didn't have to worry about allocating and managing memory. Unless you're a JVM developer you shouldn't have to worry about it. The machine should throw an exception if it reaches capacity and you should have your code designed to deal with it.
Don't get me wrong--I prefer managing my own memory (unless I'm scripting) at a level around that of C or C++ (Assembly only if really necessary, or if the C or C++ turns out to do something weird you need to look at the assembly to figure out, and microcode only for fun)--but Java is designed not to do that, and someone who is a great Java programmer but doesn't manage his own memory should still be considered a programmer if he programs. He's just not a programming guru. He's a Java-specific guru.
And they have great timing (Score:2)
And the article hits Slashdot just as they take down the Drupal servers for a 12 hour migration to Git. That's some good timing.
Re:And they have great timing (Score:2)
"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:5, Funny)
...it's a way to seamlessly align the holistic design-process in an integrated, next-generation infrastructure using best practices and maximizing ROI.
Going forward, frameworks are a paradigm shift in cost-effective and value-added solution development.
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:5, Funny)
Great, let's touch base. By not letting that slip through the cracks of our knowledge process, we can take our core competencies to the next level and increase our brand visibility in mission critical logistics.
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:2)
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:2)
On a more serious note: MrEricSir, how much do you charge? I need you to rewrite the content on my website. We all know buzzwords sell! I'm just not that savvy, I guess..
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:2)
We need to aggressively move forward in a proactive manner on this one, guys, so let's call a kickoff meeting to identify key stakeholders and brainstorm strategy. I have a three-hour slot open next Friday afternoon.
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:2)
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:5, Funny)
Bingo!
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:2)
OK, I'm interested. How can this help me leverage the cloud?
Re:"Framework" isn't just a buzzword... (Score:2)
Greatest use ever of the phrase "paradigm shift": NewTek Revolutions - Video Toaster Demo [youtube.com]
That was the first time I ever heard it and I fell in love. Everything even remotely interesting that my friends and I did during the 90's would at some point be called (in deep sonorous tones) a "paradigm shift".
I was ever so pleased when it became a weasel buzzword.
framework (Score:3, Interesting)
What are Frameworks?
A framework is a hierarchical directory that encapsulates shared resources, such as a dynamic shared library, nib files, image files, localized strings, header files, and reference documentation in a single package. Multiple applications can use all of these resources simultaneously. The system loads them into memory as needed and shares the one copy of the resource among all applications whenever possible.
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/BPFrameworks/Concepts/WhatAreFrameworks.html [apple.com]
I know that's not what you were really asking...
Re:framework (Score:2)
"If you wish to converse with me," said Voltaire, "define your terms."
For a lot of people (readers of the design patterns ideas) a framework is a set of whatever things that help/enforce a well proved design, so you don't have to invent a new design for a lot of well known requirements presented on most applications. That's a bit different (but not much!) from a library or toolbox that helps to implement whatever design.
Of course, people may assign another definition or concept to the term...
Re:framework (Score:2)
Re:framework (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the first usage of a word fixed its meaning for all time.
Add to that the fact that the word was used in relation to buildings long before the time you're referring to and the only reasonable conclusion is that you're full of shit.
Re:framework (Score:2)
So it's a half-finished app that you need to finish in order to get it to do anything useful?
It's a long way (Score:4, Insightful)
My experience with another large CMS/CMF taught me that maintenance costs (which have to be passed on to clients) really start to add up quickly with the behemoth-sized packages, if you have a very active client. And if you're developing a small site with Drupal, and think of yourself as a moderately technical person, I sincerely ask you why you're not using something like Processwire instead. The last three people I saw do this did it because Drupal was "what they knew." That's uh...interesting. Why not just learn several tools that can fit into a more flexible toolchain? Drupal has one heck of a footprint!
The summary mentions a GUI, so it's probably worth bringing up Django -- an otherwise all-code framework that comes with its own admin panel GUI already built.
Re:It's a long way (Score:2)
I'm building a site on Drupal now exactly because it's what I know.
What, should I use something I *don't* know?
I know other webby develop-o-matic, framworkified tools too, and it's true that I'm not super-convinced that Drupal is exactly right for the job... but getting the job done well is more important to me that getting the job done perfectly, when the "perfect" solution is something I haven't even seen yet. Like, nebulously perfect. Perfect in a way I don't yet know... and have no time to snoop out and master the way I have already with Drupal.
Having a big, flexible toolbox is good, but at some point you say, "Yeah, this'll the job" and get to it. Let me put to use what I've learned.
(That being said, I just subcontracted a Drupal job from a designer whose client wants five pages on the site. FIVE CRAPPY PAGES. I just about tore my eyes out with rage.)
Re:It's a long way (Score:2)
Go GROOVY/GRAILS [grails.org]!! (my plug)
Re:It's a long way (Score:2)
Well, I do think of myself as moderately technical, and there are two reasons:
So, thanks! I'll check it out. Might be very useful.
What is a framework? (Score:2)
Oh, and if our products have a similar feature, but you use different words to describe it than I do, yours is also disqualified.
Video Direct Link (Score:2)
Here is the video, in case you can't reach his smoldering server: http://vimeo.com/20286577 [vimeo.com]
Drupal is a pain (Score:4, Insightful)
You may be able to argue Drupal, or even Wordpress, are frameworks. Nevertheless, Drupal is a bear to work with, fickle, frustrating, and overly complex.
Perhaps for complex websites it's worth it, but I don't make complex websites. I make simple ones. The few times I tried to use Drupal to do so they became far from simple.
I'd rather code from scratch than use Drupal.
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:2)
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:2)
You know you're right. I know you're right. The problem is that there are so many horribly inexperienced, disorganized, and utterly belligerently incompetent web programmers out there that they give the few of us who actually know our asses from a hole in the ground a bad name. The perception amongst the broader small and medium sized business community (a.k.a. 90% of all available clients) is that if you're not using a framework you can't possibly know what you're doing. They think there's no possible way someone could be experienced enough to make a secure, efficient, and stable website simple enough that it might cost less to build it from scratch and maintain it than the "equivalent" product created via an infinite amount of Joomla or Drupal customization.
Though it seems like nobody who has only bought websites and never made one themselves has ever survived the financial damage of making this mistake the first time, so the myth persists because none of the clients out there know their asses from a hole in the ground either.
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:2)
They think there's no possible way someone could be experienced enough to make a secure, efficient, and stable website simple enough that it might cost less to build it from scratch and maintain it than the "equivalent" product created via an infinite amount of Joomla or Drupal customization.
What they're more concerned about is whether the next guy to come down the pipe will be experienced enough to quickly pick up your code-base & make the needed changes effectively. If you use a standard framework, you're quickly, cheaply & easily replaceable.
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:2)
While that's true in theory, my rough estimate based from first-hand experience is that only around 15% of the deployments of these "standard frameworks" stay standard enough for that to be true. The rest of the time the client expects the full customization capability of a site written from scratch along with this supposed "easily replaceable" coder. The code base tends to end up getting chopped all to hell and by the time they're done (IF they get done) it no longer shares enough in common with the official distribution to either benefit from future updates and compatibility with 3rd party contributed modules or to benefit from any time/cost saving that standardized, reusable code is supposed to afford.
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:2)
Drupal's backend management was confusing for me to use let alone trying to teach most typical users. For large, complex sites, yeah, it's something to consider. But if I'm building a personal site or a small site I can get wordpress up and running well in under 15 minutes. Even less if the account has a control panel with auto installer.
Everytime I've tried to use Drupal it seems like I spend just as much time figuring it out and performance tuning than I do actually creating content.
Drupal is a jack of all trades (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:2)
My company creates web pages (read: web systems). We only save time not using Drupal as our framework, when we are creating some kind of static advertising page. Other than that, no time saved. This is especially true for sites which are going to "stay around for a while".
So I agree with you. Simple web pages, no Drupal.
To sum up what kind of web pages I would consider Drupal an overkill:
A singel page with some text and/or images.
If the page was to look like this, I would immediately reach out to Drupal:
Anything else than the former.
"Drupal is a bear to work with, fickle, frustrating, and overly complex"... People say the same thing about politics, the economy, and most other things they don't have a clue about how works. Maybe you should take the time to actually learn how Drupal works. Yes, it's hard to work with, if you do not understand the concept of hooks. Almost impossible actually.
Re:Drupal is a pain (Score:3)
Maybe you should take the time to actually learn how Drupal works. Yes, it's hard to work with, if you do not understand the concept of hooks. Almost impossible actually.
I've taken enough time to learn how Drupal works to know I don't want to work with Drupal.
Wordpress works better for basic content management that clients can easily use without calling me all the time. Plus, it's more easily theme-able than Drupal is out of the box. Add to that the ease with which my clients can change themes or add plugins and Wordpress far outshines Drupal in basic content management. (And it appears to run better, too.)
For custom content management I either find an already in place program or roll my own. For example, had to work on a website for an academic journal. I initially tried a few CMSes, including Drupal, but each offered significant complexity on my end AND the user end. No dice.
Then I found the Open Journal Systems (OJS). Their solution worked for my specific task. It was a bit complex, but I wouldn't have had to write my own modules to do what I needed. Plus, it was more intuitive for my users. (Although it's user-workflow is still a bit clunky.)
For other systems, such as basic customized contact management systems, I roll my own. The rise of frameworks utilizing the MVC principle is a blessing.
It's long been a good maxim to separate the data from the code from the layout. MVC frameworks like Rails or Cake help do that up front instead of me having to design the separation myself. Drupal? Not so much.
I'd say Drupal, in the broadest sense, could be called a framework. Nevertheless, I don't know why you would want to use it that way. The maintenance required for custom Drupal sites -- and I mean having to field calls from users fixing or modding modules, or adding new ones, or teaching them how to use existing things, on top of fixing problems and tuning it for resources -- is beyond what I want to provide. I'd rather Wordpress or Rails.
And, more importantly, unlike most Drupal "developers" I know I'm not a "developer;" I'm a web designer who can hack away at stuff. If a client needs a developer I tell the client to get a real developer, or choose to use a more simple solution. TCO isn't something to be sneezed at, although it can be hard to educate clients on it.
Finally, why is it so many Drupal people say something like:
Maybe you should take the time to actually learn how Drupal works. Yes, it's hard to work with, if you do not understand the concept of hooks. Almost impossible actually.
Really? Here's the skinny: Drupal is supposed to make development easier. Why the heck should I have to learn what amounts to a new bloody language to make Drupal "work," to access it's "full power." Heck, I'll just learn to access the full power of PHP (or learn an MVC framework like Rails) rather than spend "the time to actually learn Drupal;" time I could better spend getting projects done with the knowledge I have.
Access for "the concept of hooks," really? It's not bloody rocket science, I could take the time to learn it, but once again why should I? If Drupal is going to make itself so bloody hard to use, why don't I just code from scratch?
And don't give me that malarkey about security and avoiding cross-site scripting and avoiding SQL-injections. If you're spending the time to create a complex site that needs to take advantage of the solutions that lead to possible security problems like that then you'll also have the time to read up on best practices.
So... (Score:2)
Drupal developer is good at using the tool he helped build! News at 11!
Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
(This post contains shameless self promotion)
I think GUI elements are an essential part of a web development framework nowadays. I maintain a small open source CMS called Enano [enanocms.org]. It's very basic, but during the course of its development I've written a ton of GUI building-blocks, among other frameworkey things, and documented the APIs for them so that plugins can use the same features. Regarding the GUI elements, I think consistent interfaces are an important part of any web application. Thus, what better way is there than to use a good, solid framework that, among its other jobs, takes care of some of the GUI design ugliness for you? Stuff like a standard way to present and validate forms, show message boxes, log in users, provide visual feedback for a process, etc.
In my opinion, a framework should do more than just provide a bunch of random pick-and-choose APIs that you can use. It should take care of the boring details you don't want to have to rewrite for a web app, like user account management, sessions, user data, database abstraction, that kind of thing. That's why people are writing applications using software like Drupal and Enano: they want to write a web app that does what it needs to do without having to reinvent the wheel. I'm currently using Enano as the foundation for an e-commerce site (contracted project). Yeah, eating my own dog food, but shows that it can be easy to take something like Enano/Drupal/Wordpress and use its existing, established core features to write a whole new application that uses those features.
Yes, I've used a more traditional framework before (CodeIgniter). It's great, and I love its design for basic applications, but you still have to write your own user management and a lot of other prerequisites to create something like an e-commerce site. In contrast, I've developed the entire e-commerce plugin with about 50-60 hours of work, including a couple of very minor modifications to the core.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Totally agreed.
If, in this day and age, you're making a website from scratch, you're doing it WRONG. Exception only for specialized web applications that try to do "thick client" stuff on the web (let say something like gmail).
For normal public facing sites, or intranets, if you don't use a CMS, you'll have to replicate basic stuff for nothing. Sure, stuff like ASP.NET or PHP/Ruby/Python/Whatever frameworks will handle low level authentication, data access, navigation and whatsnot, but a CMS will give you a working web sites, with all that already in a working state, and you just need to add your styles, template, and business-specific logic and you're done.
Being a .NET dev, I use Umbraco (the best one is SiteCore by a landslide, and not just if you're a .NET dev...its just impossibly expensive. Worth it if you can afford it though). It handles all the stuff thats common to all websites, and not an inch more. Then doing anything "from scratch" that would take a few hours or days takes a few minutes, and you're not stuck with precanned impossible to modify garbage like some other major CMS will force on you: everything is easy to modify.
There's a million CMS out there in all flavors that offer all level of abstractions and specialization, depending on your requirement. Pick one, and stop wasting your time doing garbage from scratch.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
First I saw:
and then I saw this:
Now, I've only used a couple PHP frameworks and only done anything with one particular CMS (don't even remember what it was). But when I think of a framework, I think of staying out of the way. Something like CodeIgnitor or Kohana (personal favorite right now). When I think of CMS I think biiiiiggggggg. That doesn't mean they don't have a place, but if you're goal is something complex in functionality and simple in design, then a framework is the perfect middleground between From Scratch and Too Big to Handle.
If your approach to every project is "There's a CMS for that!" then you are probably doing it wrong.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
My approach to every project is "use the right tool for the right job".
For public facing websites, the right tool will almost always be a CMS.
For the rest, it depends: for internal web app my personal favorite is usually a composite application framework. Unfortunately, unlike CMSs, there are very few of those, and the ones that do exist tend to be immature, so I had to write my own. Some internal web app projects are suitable for CMS too though.
If when you think CMS you think "biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig", you haven't looked at the good ones (ok, aside SiteCore: that thing is a behemoth, but it IS really awesome, as I mentionned before =P)
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
it doesn't execute 30 SQL queries for a simple "Hallo world"
Sensationalist much? Either you did something to cause those 30 queries, or you're talking out your ass like a complete idiot. My vote is on you being an idiot.
30 minutes, right? (Score:2)
Am I the only one to notice he went over 30 minutes?
Microsoft? (Score:2)
Definition by Experience (Score:2)
Framework: A bunch of organized and easily referenced functions which make development easier.
CMS (Drupal, Plone, Etc): Fun for users. Hell for developers.
Re:Definition by Experience (Score:2)
i would merrily be one if there werent budget and deadline considerations in real world. we could just work on and on on drupal et al, on our weekends and be happy.
I say not framework (Score:3)
I thought it was pretty much agreed that you could not "run" a framework. Just "use" it to build something (a website, an app...) that then you run. Significatively, there's no "content" (understanding content as "the thing that the end users usually change and use").
Drupal can run by itself, with no modifications (granted, the default installation will not let you do much, but you still can) so to me, it might be a framework plus something else - but definitively not "only" a framework.
I don't know the Drupal internals well enough, but if it is well designed, it should be reasonably easy to separate the "Drupal Framework" (classes that can be used to build other things) from the "Drupal website" (the "default content" that Drupal starts with).
Re:I say not framework (Score:2)
I don't know the Drupal internals well enough, but if it is well designed, it should be reasonably easy to separate the "Drupal Framework" (classes that can be used to build other things) from the "Drupal website" (the "default content" that Drupal starts with).
Just to be clear, Drupal is highly modularized. The only modules you can't turn off are the core-required set. For 6.0 that looks like this:
Block Controls the boxes that are displayed around the main content.
Filter Handles the filtering of content in preparation for display.
Node Allows content to be submitted to the site and displayed on pages.
System Handles general site configuration for administrators.
User Manages the user registration and login system.
Then there's a whole other set of optional core modules:
Comment Allows users to comment on and discuss published content.
Contact Enables the use of both personal and site-wide contact forms.
Content translation Allows content to be translated into different languages.
Database logging Logs and records system events to the database.
Forum Enables threaded discussions about general topics.
Help Manages the display of online help.
Locale Adds language handling functionality and enables the translation of the user interface to languages other than English.
Menu Allows administrators to customize the site navigation menu.
OpenID Allows users to log into your site using OpenID.
Path Allows users to rename URLs.
PHP filter Allows embedded PHP code/snippets to be evaluated.
Ping Alerts other sites when your site has been updated.
Poll Allows your site to capture votes on different topics in the form of multiple choice questions.
Profile Supports configurable user profiles.
Search Enables site-wide keyword searching.
Statistics Logs access statistics for your site.
Syslog Logs and records system events to syslog.
Taxonomy Enables the categorization of content.
equired by: Forum (disabled), Image Gallery (enabled), Catalog (enabled)
Throttle Handles the auto-throttling mechanism, to control site congestion.
Tracker Enables tracking of recent posts for users.
Trigger Enables actions to be fired on certain system events, such as when new content is created.
Update status Checks the status of available updates for Drupal and your installed modules and themes.
Upload Allows users to upload and attach files to content.
So this is the set of functionality you know will work properly across all supported databases without adding any modules.
Note that all this applies to Drupal 6. Drupal 7 as a framework is fine but if you depend on contrib modules then it is NOT READY. Further, most contrib modules are not database-independent at this point. I'd wait until at least 7.1 before I started using D7. D7 has a whole new system for database independence and most modules are still developing their own queries manually in a database-specific fashion.
Re:I say not framework (Score:2)
Thanks a lot for your reply. I specially appreciated the bit at the end about D7. I guess I'll wait.
Most of the modules you describe, I've already used. I just don't know the code inside them.
"Download, uncompress on sites/all/modules, activate, if it doesn't explode, configure" that's my general approach with modules. It rarely includes a "have a peek at the code". But thanks.
I hope you didn't type all the descriptions of each module and just copy-pasted from somewhere else. Otherwise, what a lot or work!
Re:I say not framework (Score:2)
Thanks a lot for your reply. I specially appreciated the bit at the end about D7. I guess I'll wait.
I tried it, and I would wait :)
Most of the modules you describe, I've already used. I just don't know the code inside them.
Me neither, they're in core. I only look at their code when the docs suck and I need to understand what the code is expecting me to do. I'm not much of a PHP guy but it's one of a whole horde of languages with similar syntax so I can muddle through. In fact I'm not much of a programmer in general. I have contributed back patches to drupal modules which were accepted though, both features and fixes. Not sure if that's scary or if I'm smarter than I think.
I hope you didn't type all the descriptions of each module and just copy-pasted from somewhere else. Otherwise, what a lot or work!
Copypasted from admin/build/modules
Drupal hungry. Drupal cries. Drupal loves papa. (Score:2)
What's in store for tomorrow ? "Drupal is excited for carnival" ?
has slashdot became drupal's private publishing arm ?
Re:Drupal hungry. Drupal cries. Drupal loves papa. (Score:2)
Re:Coder-purist snobbery (Score:2)
It basically makes this framework competition sound like the paralympics.
"You're not allowed to compete if you're more capable than us".
Re:Coder-purist snobbery (Score:2)
Re:Alright. this IS drupal pushing. (Score:2)
Re:Alright. this IS drupal pushing. (Score:2)
Re:Alright. this IS drupal pushing. (Score:2)
Did you bother reading the article?
Ah, you must be new here.
Re:Alright. this IS drupal pushing. (Score:2)
implementing the entire thing from start took only 1-2 days after that, along with the client's pickiness.
Re:Drupal is not a framework (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Php_framework#PHP [wikipedia.org]
Re:Drupal is not a framework (Score:2)
Great, now I don't feel so bad for sucking at Symfony.
Frameworks seem to embody everything I hate about modern programmers. Sadly, I gotta eat, so I have to play ball.
Re:Drupal is not a framework (Score:2)
When you work as an architect in a corporate setting framework are great since they allow you to impose your will upon the code monkey
Re:Drupal is not a framework (Score:2)
What exactly is so wrong with frameworks?
If you consider the hardware's that all the code running on a machine is a single program, then an operating system fits the description.
It implements IoC, since it's the OS which calls the user code when appropriate, it implements a default behavior, they're usually extensible and user code definitively can't change its code.
Re:Drupal is not a framework (Score:2)
Re:Drupal is shit. PHP is shit. (Score:3)
Re:Drupal is shit. PHP is shit. (Score:2)
That is why there is, in fact, no such thing as Wikipedia. The WikiMedia system does not exist either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Software_and_hardware [wikipedia.org]
In a similar fashion there is no VM ZEND engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zend_Engine [wikipedia.org]
And I hate to break it to you, but there is no Santa Clause.
Re:Drupal is shit. PHP is shit. (Score:2)
Is there a get-out claus?
Re:Drupal is shit. PHP is shit. (Score:2)
You're in the same league as graphic designers bitching about 99Designs. How about other now-commodity stuff like ODBC drivers? There used to be entire companies around that one piece of tech. Now it's something we expect to just work as a matter of fact.
If that means the bar is lower for web development, then so be it. Yes, more morons will get into the game. But so will competent people who otherwise may not have. In the end, it makes web development more affordable and within reach of more people. If that's not a win, I don't know what is.