Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125335
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 10:00:38 +0200
To: "John Coggeshall" <john@coggeshall.org>, "Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net>
Cc: "Bob Weinand" <bobwei9@hotmail.com>,
 "Jim Winstead" <jimw@trainedmonkey.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <66e68232-9655-43b2-b4e1-18b62856193b@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6B084580-CEFA-45A3-8221-944B9502B745@getmailspring.com>
References: <663bea3c-a8e7-4881-2bcb-971a96dea9cb@php.net>
 <6B084580-CEFA-45A3-8221-944B9502B745@getmailspring.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Using and Mentioning Third-party Packages in
 PHP Documentation and Web Projects
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=ecd8942a42ac4623a6206ec8aa28cf68
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--ecd8942a42ac4623a6206ec8aa28cf68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 09:51, John Coggeshall wrote:
>=20
>> And that is how you will find that the "new" languages will "win". If=
 we
>> don't promote how modern PHP Development works, then there will be mo=
re
>> "PHP, a fractal of bad design" articles to come for decades.
>>=20
>> We *must* do better than this. It probably doesn't all need to be in =
the
>> documentation (doc-en), but it absolutely belongs on our website.
>=20
> Hear Hear Derick!!
>=20
> I am not advocating that php.net put its finger on the scale in favor =
of Laravel over others with this comment, but why php.net does not have =
a documentation analog similar to how Laravel's documentation is set up =
is beyond me. Useful installation instructions, sections on "How do I do=
 database stuff", "Security", "Filtering Data", "Installing third party =
packages" etc... there are too many people who have embedded in their br=
ains that PHP is a badly designed language because we don't teach or eve=
n advertise to people how to write good PHP code... as others have menti=
oned as an example, the lack of even a mention of composer on php.net is=
 mind-blowing.
>=20
> As Derick said, back 20+ years ago PHP had amazing documentation for t=
he times -- miles ahead IMO than most open source projects. But the worl=
d has moved on, developers want and need higher level documentation that=
 is more opinionated on not just the dry APIs available you might use to=
 connect to a database (for example), but how to properly connect to a d=
atabase. Back 20 years ago we had companies like Zend around who devoted=
 considerable resources to filling that gap for the community (along wit=
h O'Reilly, etc.) but those entities are gone now and it is up to the pr=
oject to pick up the slack.
>=20
> I also think it's a mistake to get too caught up with the concept of "=
endorsements" and people worrying that "oh gosh if php.net talks about L=
aravel and Zend Framework then that means something bad for XYZ framewor=
k" (pick your favoriate techs here). It's easily solved by having a sect=
ion on "Popular PHP Frameworks" that explains the concept that PHP as a =
language doesn't embrace any particular framework, the importance that y=
ou do generally want to embrace a framework to do anything serious, and =
provide a list of popular ones that people commonly turn to when buildin=
g their apps. As for using a framework or any other PHP-related tech in =
the project's codebases... I think we're grossly overestimating how much=
 weight that decision would carry with the PHP community at large. Short=
 of the PHP Project stating "X is the official framework of PHP" (and es=
pecially if we say "We don't have an official framework but here are goo=
d options that are very popular" instead), the concern over the appearan=
ce of endorsements at this point is really an invented issue rooted at l=
east in part by historic concerns that simply don't exist anymore.
>=20
> Coogle

I agree with this to a point. What if I want my newish framework listed =
on the page? What are the qualifications for being listed (or unlisted) =
there? Can anyone add their own framework?

If anyone can add something to the list, then it eventually will become =
as overwhelming as https://github.com/uhub/awesome-php and if there are =
strict qualification requirements, the list needs to be reviewed periodi=
cally to remove projects that no longer meet those criteria.

=E2=80=94 Rob
--ecd8942a42ac4623a6206ec8aa28cf68
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div>On Wed, Aug 28,=
 2024, at 09:51, John Coggeshall wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cit=
e" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div><br></div><blockquote><div><div>And that is=
 how you will find that the "new" languages will "win". If we<br></div><=
div>don't promote how modern PHP Development works, then there will be m=
ore<br></div><div>"PHP, a fractal of bad design" articles to come for de=
cades.<br></div><div><br></div><div>We *must* do better than this. It pr=
obably doesn't all need to be in the<br></div><div>documentation (doc-en=
), but it absolutely belongs on our website.<br></div></div></blockquote=
><div><div><br></div><div>Hear Hear Derick!!<br></div><div><br></div><di=
v>I am not advocating that <a href=3D"http://php.net" title=3D"php.net">=
php.net</a>&nbsp;put its finger on the scale in favor of Laravel over ot=
hers with this comment, but why <a href=3D"http://php.net" title=3D"php.=
net">php.net</a>&nbsp;does not have a documentation analog similar to ho=
w Laravel's documentation is set up is beyond me. Useful installation in=
structions, sections on "How do I do database stuff", "Security", "Filte=
ring Data", "Installing third party packages" etc... there are too many =
people who have embedded in their brains that PHP is a badly designed la=
nguage because we don't teach or even advertise to people how to write g=
ood PHP code... as others have mentioned as an example, the lack of even=
 a mention of composer on <a href=3D"http://php.net" title=3D"php.net">p=
hp.net</a>&nbsp;is mind-blowing.<br></div><div><br></div><div>As Derick =
said, back 20+ years ago PHP had amazing documentation for the times -- =
miles ahead IMO than most open source projects. But the world has moved =
on, developers want and need higher level documentation that is more opi=
nionated on not just the dry APIs available you might use to connect to =
a database (for example), but how to properly connect to a database. Bac=
k 20 years ago we had companies like Zend around who devoted considerabl=
e resources to filling that gap for the community (along with O'Reilly, =
etc.) but those entities are gone now and it is up to the project to pic=
k up the slack.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I also think it's a mistake=
 to get too caught up with the concept of "endorsements" and people worr=
ying that "oh gosh if <a href=3D"http://php.net" title=3D"php.net">php.n=
et</a>&nbsp;talks about Laravel and Zend Framework then that means somet=
hing bad for XYZ framework" (pick your favoriate techs here). It's easil=
y solved by having a section on "Popular PHP Frameworks" that explains t=
he concept that PHP as a language doesn't embrace any particular framewo=
rk, the importance that you do generally want to embrace a framework to =
do anything serious, and provide a list of popular ones that people comm=
only turn to when building their apps. As for using a framework or any o=
ther PHP-related tech in the project's codebases... I think we're grossl=
y overestimating how much weight that decision would carry with the PHP =
community at large. Short of the PHP Project stating "X is the official =
framework of PHP" (and especially if we say "We don't have an official f=
ramework but here are good options that are very popular" instead), the =
concern over the appearance of endorsements at this point is really an i=
nvented issue rooted at least in part by historic concerns that simply d=
on't exist anymore.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Coogle<br></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with this to a point. What if I =
want my newish framework listed on the page? What are the qualifications=
 for being listed (or unlisted) there? Can anyone add their own framewor=
k?<br></div><div><br></div><div>If anyone can add something to the list,=
 then it eventually will become as overwhelming as&nbsp;<a href=3D"https=
://github.com/uhub/awesome-php">https://github.com/uhub/awesome-php</a>&=
nbsp;and if there are strict qualification requirements, the list needs =
to be reviewed periodically to remove projects that no longer meet those=
 criteria.<br></div><div><br></div><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Ro=
b<br></div></body></html>
--ecd8942a42ac4623a6206ec8aa28cf68--