<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 10 Days Later:  Early Impressions of CakePHP vs. CodeIgniter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=rss</link>
	<description>Facebook should&#039;ve be written in unicornSchemaLang, because everyone *knows* that PHP is no good for anything, right?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:36:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" />
		<item>
		<title>By: Julien</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-10856</link>
		<dc:creator>Julien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-10856</guid>
		<description>I like the way you explain things. 

Thanks for this post!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the way you explain things. </p>
<p>Thanks for this post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: speedovation</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-10565</link>
		<dc:creator>speedovation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-10565</guid>
		<description>CodeIgniter is really nice framework.My site is designed by using this.
Nice info...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CodeIgniter is really nice framework.My site is designed by using this.<br />
Nice info&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deltawing</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-8834</link>
		<dc:creator>deltawing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-8834</guid>
		<description>After nightmarish experiences with spaghetti code and procedural/pseudo-OO programming, I can&#039;t stand even the tiniest inconsistencies anymore. That&#039;s why I chose CakePHP. As you said, &quot;CakePHP has a much, much stronger commitment to using objects to access core functionality&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After nightmarish experiences with spaghetti code and procedural/pseudo-OO programming, I can&#8217;t stand even the tiniest inconsistencies anymore. That&#8217;s why I chose CakePHP. As you said, &#8220;CakePHP has a much, much stronger commitment to using objects to access core functionality&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennison Uy - Graphic Designer</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-8599</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennison Uy - Graphic Designer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-8599</guid>
		<description>I have always been an OO guy so I love CakePHP but I am trying out CodeIgniter just so I can have a say for myself. The demos look real flashy though!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have always been an OO guy so I love CakePHP but I am trying out CodeIgniter just so I can have a say for myself. The demos look real flashy though!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Hartjes</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-7869</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Hartjes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-7869</guid>
		<description>@Michael Wales
Thanks for the thoughts about CI!  I guess I&#039;m just big on consistency and my programmers brain twitches when it thinks about mixing OOP and procedural programming when there is no (as yet revealed to me) obvious reason for doing so in userland code (meaning not the functions that make the core of PHP itself).

Personally, I do all my dev work in PHP 5 and despite people&#039;s thinking on this matter CakePHP works just fine in PHP 5, there is just some code in the associative data mapping functionality that does checks based on what version of PHP you are running.

I assure you that it&#039;s valid code, because it does work.  Now, perhaps I will go back and refactor it to be more along the lines of CI best practices, but in the effort to Get It Done I might have to leave it for now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Michael Wales<br />
Thanks for the thoughts about CI!  I guess I&#8217;m just big on consistency and my programmers brain twitches when it thinks about mixing OOP and procedural programming when there is no (as yet revealed to me) obvious reason for doing so in userland code (meaning not the functions that make the core of PHP itself).</p>
<p>Personally, I do all my dev work in PHP 5 and despite people&#8217;s thinking on this matter CakePHP works just fine in PHP 5, there is just some code in the associative data mapping functionality that does checks based on what version of PHP you are running.</p>
<p>I assure you that it&#8217;s valid code, because it does work.  Now, perhaps I will go back and refactor it to be more along the lines of CI best practices, but in the effort to Get It Done I might have to leave it for now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Wales</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-7866</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Wales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-7866</guid>
		<description>The discrepancy between functions utilized in the View files whereas methods are used in the Controllers can be a blessing in disguise.

Functions allow non-programmers to flex the Views as much as they like. Take, for instance, Wordpress. There are literally thousands of people out there that can&#039;t write PHP code for the life of them yet they develop Wordpress themes. The functions provide a sense of simplicity, whereas OOP practices can tend to complicate things unnecessarily. In addition, the functions are merely wrappers for methods within the class (I believe - I&#039;d have to look over the source again) - so if you truly wanted to go OOP, it shouldn&#039;t be an issue.

The sloppy code you mention in the Controller is just that - sloppy code. The developer is truly abusing the flexibility within CodeIgniter (and the fact that it runs on PHP4 or 5). Honestly, I don&#039;t even think that is valid code.

Personally, I always use CodeIgniter on a PHP5 installation and write my code as such. You can pass the $data variable to the View as an object just as easily as it can be an array.

&lt;code&gt;
// Any loading should be at the top of the method
$this-&gt;load-&gt;model(&#039;users_m&#039;);
$this-&gt;load-&gt;model(&#039;layout_m&#039;);
// Get our header/footer (this would probably be in a constructor actually
$this-&gt;data-&gt;layout = $this-&gt;layout_m-&gt;getLayout();
// Get user information using a session var (prob. another good line for the constructor
$this-&gt;data-&gt;user = $this-&gt;users_m-&gt;getUser($this-&gt;session-&gt;userdata(&#039;id&#039;));
// Send it all to our view file
$this-&gt;load-&gt;view(&#039;welcome&#039;, $this-&gt;data);
&lt;/code&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The discrepancy between functions utilized in the View files whereas methods are used in the Controllers can be a blessing in disguise.</p>
<p>Functions allow non-programmers to flex the Views as much as they like. Take, for instance, Wordpress. There are literally thousands of people out there that can&#8217;t write PHP code for the life of them yet they develop Wordpress themes. The functions provide a sense of simplicity, whereas OOP practices can tend to complicate things unnecessarily. In addition, the functions are merely wrappers for methods within the class (I believe &#8211; I&#8217;d have to look over the source again) &#8211; so if you truly wanted to go OOP, it shouldn&#8217;t be an issue.</p>
<p>The sloppy code you mention in the Controller is just that &#8211; sloppy code. The developer is truly abusing the flexibility within CodeIgniter (and the fact that it runs on PHP4 or 5). Honestly, I don&#8217;t even think that is valid code.</p>
<p>Personally, I always use CodeIgniter on a PHP5 installation and write my code as such. You can pass the $data variable to the View as an object just as easily as it can be an array.</p>
<p><code><br />
// Any loading should be at the top of the method<br />
$this-&gt;load-&gt;model('users_m');<br />
$this-&gt;load-&gt;model('layout_m');<br />
// Get our header/footer (this would probably be in a constructor actually<br />
$this-&gt;data-&gt;layout = $this-&gt;layout_m-&gt;getLayout();<br />
// Get user information using a session var (prob. another good line for the constructor<br />
$this-&gt;data-&gt;user = $this-&gt;users_m-&gt;getUser($this-&gt;session-&gt;userdata('id'));<br />
// Send it all to our view file<br />
$this-&gt;load-&gt;view('welcome', $this-&gt;data);<br />
</code></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Domigan</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-7863</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Domigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:29:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-7863</guid>
		<description>I actually switched from CakePHP to CodeIgnitor for the following reasons: 

* As great as the auto-association stuff that Cake does for you is, my app is complex enough that 9 times out of 10 I needed to write dedicated queries to give me the needed flexibility and speed. The overhead Cake introduced in its associations was beginning to slow things down.
* I don&#039;t generate HTML views for my pages, just send JSON data to a JS frontend, so I didn&#039;t need all Cake&#039;s advanced View stuff (and convention that &quot;required&quot; you to always have a separate view file). I appreciated the flexibility of the &quot;looser&quot; MVC approach in CodeIgnitor.
* The number of really useful utilities (helpers, classes etc) built in to CodeIgnitor was very impressive.
* Small footprint
* Great documentation.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time working with Cake, but I found CodeIgnitor offered me the speed and flexibility I needed for this particular app.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually switched from CakePHP to CodeIgnitor for the following reasons: </p>
<p>* As great as the auto-association stuff that Cake does for you is, my app is complex enough that 9 times out of 10 I needed to write dedicated queries to give me the needed flexibility and speed. The overhead Cake introduced in its associations was beginning to slow things down.<br />
* I don&#8217;t generate HTML views for my pages, just send JSON data to a JS frontend, so I didn&#8217;t need all Cake&#8217;s advanced View stuff (and convention that &#8220;required&#8221; you to always have a separate view file). I appreciated the flexibility of the &#8220;looser&#8221; MVC approach in CodeIgnitor.<br />
* The number of really useful utilities (helpers, classes etc) built in to CodeIgnitor was very impressive.<br />
* Small footprint<br />
* Great documentation.</p>
<p>I thoroughly enjoyed my time working with Cake, but I found CodeIgnitor offered me the speed and flexibility I needed for this particular app.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Hartjes</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-7861</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Hartjes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:50:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-7861</guid>
		<description>@Skateinmars
It&#039;s more about consitency than anything else.  I believe you should pick one method and go with it.  Mixing leads to sloppiness, if you ask me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Skateinmars<br />
It&#8217;s more about consitency than anything else.  I believe you should pick one method and go with it.  Mixing leads to sloppiness, if you ask me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skateinmars</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-7860</link>
		<dc:creator>Skateinmars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-7860</guid>
		<description>Nice post.
But (as a codeigniter user) I don&#039;t think simple functions are bads when they are used as helpers. The functions you pointed out are only intended to be used in views and in this place it is really more conveniant than creating an object (especially for functions like base_url)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post.<br />
But (as a codeigniter user) I don&#8217;t think simple functions are bads when they are used as helpers. The functions you pointed out are only intended to be used in views and in this place it is really more conveniant than creating an object (especially for functions like base_url)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mahmudul Hasan</title>
		<link>http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/comment-page-1/#comment-7859</link>
		<dc:creator>Mahmudul Hasan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/02/10-days-later-early-impressions-of-cakephp-vs-codeigniter/#comment-7859</guid>
		<description>But CodeIgniter works with both Php4 and php5, and with both IIS and Apache. And who says CodeIgniter is hard to install ? 

Anyways, I too believe that Cake is a stronger framework. But we  were forced to use CodeIgniter, because back that day, we had to build some modules for a web site which was already hosted on an IIS server and supporting only php4.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But CodeIgniter works with both Php4 and php5, and with both IIS and Apache. And who says CodeIgniter is hard to install ? </p>
<p>Anyways, I too believe that Cake is a stronger framework. But we  were forced to use CodeIgniter, because back that day, we had to build some modules for a web site which was already hosted on an IIS server and supporting only php4.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->