Of course this is not what we see at production-grade software, but I really enjoy the fact that the language was designed with the HTTP protocol in mind. It's really unique in this sense.
Of course this is not what we see at production-grade software, but I really enjoy the fact that the language was designed with the HTTP protocol in mind. It's really unique in this sense.
When I did learn about HTTP, it was very easy, since I already knew it without knowing I knew it, so maybe that's in favor of your point, but there's much to be said for the actual understanding that I didn't have at first. When I started interviewing people for PHP entry-level jobs, asking about HTTP was one of the ways I gauged how well applicants understood their work at a conceptual level.
It also took learning other languages to understand how PHP is so unique in how tied to HTTP it is (rebuilding its entire universe every request).
(these learnings happened when moving beyond the PHP-based CMS style of development - agency style work on my case - to make more custom software).
The fact that I can't tell if this comment is sarcasm or snark or serious says a lot.
PHP mixed with HTML was one of the "bad ideas" that hurt PHP. It was a bad practice that got out of hand.
Now why no one bats an eye at node/react doing this very thing and calling it JSX is beyond me but...
So what, JSPs are just the same. In the end what matters is the speed to Get Things Done, and there's utterly nothing competing with PHP, closely followed by Tomcat+JSP as you can use the insane amount of interfaces with just about everything that the Java world has.
Indeed.
It works great, it's fast and you don't have to learn a new templating language or dialect every 2-3 years. Or try to figure out how to do trivial things like loops in loops.
I don't quite get the use of templating engines in PHP because PHP is a templating engine itself.
1. It's a loaded foot gun. PHP was notorious for 1000 line files with HTML and SQL all mixed together. (I speak from personal experiences on this)
2. Templating languages are "portable" (In theory). Have a mixed env of PHP and Java... there were templating languages that would work for both teams, it took a step out of scalability.... XML and XSLT were the promise land on this one, but we fucked all that up. Portability is a big deal. We're still slinging CSV files for a good reason.
Improper use of templating engines or trying to use templating engines that aren't up to the task can give you headaches just as well. Sadly no amount of frameworks or templating engines can stop a bad programmer from writing bad code, in the end we're craftsmen who need to learn how to use our tools.
2. This could be a valid use case, but a rather rare one. XML+XSLT is something that sounds fantastic on paper, but as anyone who actually worked with it knows it ranges from a big disappointment to an absolute nightmare.
It's not a matter of whether the code is bad or not, but how bad.
The entire point of frameworks is to add guard rails to help you stay disciplined and avoid cutting corners on separation of concerns.
Using PHP as a template language tempts developers to violate SOC every day.
Also I don't see how using a loop or conditional in PHP is any different from using one in a templating engine, aside from the overhead of the engine and added annoyance of debugging another language in your project.
Those problems are called "junior developers", and I think we'd all like to avoid them, but that's not very sustainable.
Perhaps we can fix the education problem, but given that folks just do a boot camp and head into the market, prospects aren't looking good.
> Also I don't see how using a loop or conditional in PHP is any different from using one in a templating engine, aside from the overhead of the engine and added annoyance of debugging another language in your project.
The problem is convention, or lack thereof. Without convention, who's to say where that database call should live? Frameworks, which tend to use templating languages for this reason, tend to make that convention clear to all teammates.
I want to mention that this doesn't mean you can't use PHP as the programming language for your templates as long as the conventions are clear, but PHP is poorly suited to being a template language for reasons I've posted elsewhere in this thread.
Its a one off... Its just an internal tool... This is a prototype... It's a hot fix...
I know better, I have done it. It is only with dumb luck that they didn't end up as products. Some people dont know that they should not or that it isnt a place they should try to "get away" with it. These things grow and then turn into products and someone has to clean them up.
Source: I made a lot of money turning PHP "projects" into "software".
> Also I don't see how using a loop or conditional in PHP is any different from using one in a templating engine
One of these things is Turing complete. The other is not.
Templating languages have their own laments: see yaml configs used to create "workflows", "environments" and "servers" via templating.
At another job, another guy built some massive abstract-factory-factory-layer in Python, a class hierarchy 4 or 5 layers deep. 5000+ lines in a single file. It was almost impossible to debug.
Both of these are better than some C++ code I once saw. 10,000+ lines in a single file. In that file, there was a function with a 3000+ line case statement, which was mostly copy-pasta'd from other parts of the code (not in that 10K line file.)
I have seen plenty of PHP code that smelled like a nuclear dumpster fire, but you can write trash in any language.
[1] It's so much worse than this... You can use some horrible hacks like undefining a well-known function that each template implements, but this would only work one level deep without also adding a mechanism for "calling" a template, and at that point you are making a template system on top of PHP.
$_SERVER, $_POST, $_GET.
The rest is not the PHP3 I recognize to be honest, let alone the modern stuff. Remember include() literally just included the code right there, inline, so you could include in functions and gain the function's scope:
function render($data) {
switch ($data['foo']) {
case 'bar': include('bar.inc'); break;
case 'baz': include('baz.inc'); break;
}
}
That's your template router with all the template's data pre-loaded in the template's scope, be it ever so filthy.> Remember include() literally just included the code right there, inline, so you could include in functions and gain the function's scope:
I've talked about this approach elsewhere in thread, it is not nestable without building a way to "call" templates on top of require/include, and when you do that you'll need to undefined the render function to do it as well, which creates additional complexity. At that point, the original premise of just using raw PHP isn't very true, because you are now building a framework or templating system around it.
Also, you have to contend with the magic "render" function not being globally defined by something. It's messy.
Um. Can you give me an example to pad that out a bit?
> and requires you to do cleanup after each template instantiation to avoid leaking values between templates
In my render() example, isn't that "reaching the end of the function"? (Edit: Wait, you're only talking about the superglobals, right?)
Your example of using a render() function is already an example of this. You can parameterize render() to provide data to the template from the caller without utilizing untyped globals, and without having to clean the globals up after the template has rendered.
> Wait, you're only talking about the superglobals, right?
Yes. Globals are globals. PHP's super global distinction isn't really relevant to whether you are tainting the execution environment when you pass data to a script.
The point is, as I elaborate elsewhere, PHP is very awkward to use as a proper templating system.
I hear this here, and elsewhere I hear that PHP has evolved into a decent language. Both can't be true.
Namespaces allow non-global functions without a wrapping class already, IIRC. Looking up though, there seem to be special cases (legacy behavior, making everything at the top level global) when using namespaced files with include() statemtents, if I read the docs correctly.
Dumping pure functions as static members into wrapper classes was not uncommon when I used PHP.
But primarily, a lot of code was heavy on dependency injection and inversion of control, Symfony being the leader of this coding style maybe.
TFA also seems to be about class-oriented programming, but not the heavy design-pattern style mentioned above.
The linked TUI CLI parser looks like a nice and lean PHP OOP example.
$closure = function(){};
instead of
function closure(){}
Do you write safe templates in PHP ?
It is obviously good to be able to automate generating web pages based on say the state of a database. As this gives you up-to-date pages without someone having to manually build them.
And if that - automatically build web-pages from a database - is your goal and your current state of the art is static pages, then creating a language you can interject into your static pages, to build the page dynamically is a no brainer.
Hey don't drag Node into this, you aren't forced to do any of that.
React to me feels like SPA developers discovering the idea of PHP and thinking they invented it. This shouldn't be surprising, since React came from Facebook, and Facebook historically is a PHP shop.
Mixing your business logic and presentation is a bad idea, but it's very attractive when you don't have the informative scars
You might say, doesn't Facebook have the scars to avoid designing React? Well, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
PS: I would suspect the down voting is just the "LOL", otherwise it's a fair comment.
This is accurate, and I never thought of it that way.
> PS: I would suspect the down voting is just the "LOL", otherwise it's a fair comment.
I did laugh out loud because I did not know WHAT to make of the comment. As someone who buttered my bread on PHP when everyone hated it, it was a sign of how times have changed!
PHP receives its share of criticism, and HTML lives on relatively unscathed.
So if mixing PHP/HTML is a problem, you'd probably throw out the PHP and keep the HTML.
Also, isn't this use case PHP's origin? A dev wanted some programmable HTML?
Turns out I wasn't missing much. I've mentally pegged it as an example of "the pendulum swings" - thin client vs thick client, centre vs edge, tight coupling vs loose coupling, etc.
React is popular for the same reason as PHP. I can only hope the industry corrects for this soon, because I challenge you to find a startup building raw PHP in 2024, yet nearly all of them build with React.
In PHP, “HTML" is string concatenation; in React, “HTML" is an HTML-flavoured bit of syntax sugar over HTML-generating functions (and you are still welcome to call the functions yourself, if you want your HTML-generation code to avoid looking like HTML). Aside from looking kind-of similar if you squint, I’d say the differences and pros and cons are fairly significant (For example the IMO worst thing about the PHP approach, the ease of shooting yourself in the foot with XSS holes, is a non-issue in JSX).
I use it exactly for rapid dev of stupid ideas. I’m not sure if I’d use it in a production environment because it is quite slow.
If you think of PHP as prototype-only, mixing tags and HTML is very convenient, like it is with the other thousand templating tools. And obviously it's more a problem of XSS through badly sanitized inputs more than the mix in itself, blah blah blah
It's PHP in production a bad practice that got out of hand.
Because it's not "this very thing". HTML around PHP is output directly to stdout. JSX is just syntax for literals.