Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
First of all I don't mind the "writing more code" attitude that CI has so I don't really care about that. Right now I'm pretty good in CakePHP (I have like 3-4 years in it) and I think it has certain flaws the biggest one being its speed and I was thinking of passing over to CI but I need to know something..
My simplest application in CakePHP (with admin and some data in table - multilanguage) takes about 0.2 Seconds of code processing. I was wondering if anyone has a time for Code Igniter for a certain website. I'm curious if it's worth the learning time.
I installed code igniter and at first it seemed imensly fast but I'm just worried that if I keep adding components, models, helpers and everything to it it will slow down (maybe more than cake). So.. I'm actually looking for an example of CI website and the exact time it loads... (down to at least 2 decimals).
This thread will give you a fairly good answer, as the site in question is not a "Hello World" but a fully fledged Site with database access helpers and libraries loaded, etc...
I'm sure some will have arguments about its validity (probably CakePHP proponents), but it's not every day you have a site re-developed between frameworks and compared.
UPDATE
Again, for those that don't want to follow the link to the thread, the tester actually upgraded the site to CI 2.0, using modular extentions, caching, other optimizations and re-tested
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 months ago.
Improve this question
I need a little advice before I start work.
So I have been developing a site under React for a client for 2 years now.
My client wants to duplicate this site to create 3 additional brands, the architecture, the design is the same, just the content and the logos change.
So for you is this:
1 - I duplicate in several github repos
Where
2 - I simply create several branches
Thanks
It really depends.
Option A, copy-paste your project to X other projects will make it easy to start and you can finish it in a day, BUT... every time you'll have to fix a bug you will need to do it in each repo and they'll diverge.
Option B, is to build front-end and an API.
The UI will be the same for all the projects but the API will return different data based on the client.
Option C, create a configuration file that you can modify based on the customer.
I believe that Option A will be the simplest & fastest one to get started with. You'll pay the price as you grow, but if you don't need to maintain the projects in the future I would go with it.
If you're going to maintain those projects for a long time you might want to consider refactoring the projects to a dynamic backend that returns the data based on the client.
Option C, it's a pretty good compromise between A and B.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I know that for a simple static website, using plain HTML.. is the easiest and quickest way. But, what are some use cases between the two options? Is using a framework mostly the best solution?
You can basically see frameworks as pre-written structures for your App.
In other words, frameworks are meant to help you building applications quicker by addressing common development problems.
So, going back to your question, there are not really times where you would prefer vanilla javascript over frontend frameworks due to the incapacity of scaling well, which could result in inscrutable and unmaintainable spaghetti code.
Other bit you would want to consider about frameworks, is their high performance obtained thanks to their virtual DOM (abstract map of the real DOM), which helps handling events to update parts of the App without the need of re-rendering it.
On the other hand, I would suggest to go with a static website using pure HTML and Vanilla JS, only if learning / instructing someone, or if building something really really simple (but rest assure 99% of your commercial websites may suit better under a framework rather than without).
If you want to read more about it, I would suggest the following articles:
https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/02/03/is-it-time-for-a-front-end-framework/
https://gomakethings.com/why-do-people-choose-frameworks-over-vanilla-js/
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/do-we-still-need-javascript-frameworks-42576735949b/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I don't think this is an easy question to answer but I am unable to find a comparison of the use cases for angular 1 and 2 rather than simply listing the new features. At my work we develop client side only web apps, we are not allowed to use a server, all of our content is loaded and delivered through iPads, and our development team is small and (relatively) inexperienced. We are just wrapping up an angular 1 project and are about to start a new project that is based on this recently finished one, it will be however much larger in scope and functionality. Because of this we thought it might be a good time to transition since we have already figured out the basic logic and structure of how this larger project will work. So I guess the best way to break it down is as follows:
are there any benefits (over angular 1) to angular 2, excluding features that depend on a server?
are there types of applications that angular 2 is better suited for?
does the community at large view angular 1 and 2 as coexisting with both being developed and supported or is it going to be angular 2 going forward?
am I looking at this completely wrong and it's not an all out nothing approach and we can develop in both?
Any advice is appreciated, if this is on the wrong section let me know and I will move it.
I don't think there is any question that you should be moving into Angular 2. Especially now that Angular 2 has reached the stage of Release Candidate. If not migrating from 1 to 2, then starting your new project completely in Angular 2.
Angular 2 is a completely new framework and, in my opinion, much easier and simplified. There are a whole array of reasons why Angular 2 is better than Angular 1, not the least of which is that Angular 2 is much faster and is the future as far as Angular development is concerned.
Yes there are some growing pains, but I firmly believe you will be very happy with Angular 2 and not look back. Take the time to learn it and you will be very happy you did.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I get it: the API is going to change, possibly in dramatic ways.
However, I make small apps for less than 10 customers each. I'm thinking that I can:
choose a specific version and stick with it
make lots of tests to check for compatibility with new releases
Also, given the projects are small, there's very little code to update when needed.
I realize that the Angular team is communicating the general readiness of their code in terms of availability for adoption from the general developer user-base.
I hear things like:
"Should You Use Angular 2.0 or 1.x?" =>
"The executive summary: There’s no Angular 2 to use, so Angular 1 is still the way to go."
And then I see videos showing how to use it. And I think to myself: with the above strategy of choosing a specific version & sticking with it + doing very careful updates to new releases, I don't see a very compelling reason not to. I mean, the only thing not to do would be not to go complaining to Angular whenever their changes inevitably break my code; it's expected. I'd be disappointed if it didn't break between now & then. That's part of the fun. Fix it and move on.
Concerns:
Security: the only real concern that gives me pause is that some security issue might be in play. But then, that's almost always the case. After all, it is the world of cyber insecurity.
Angular team can still make major changes in syntax and behaviour.
You can just try to use similiar approach with Angular 1.x, especially they introduced .component in Angular 1.5.
So just work with directives and components, after Angular 2.0 release migration should be fairly easy.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'd like to learn to create a website with processing on the client side.
Here are my goals:
- The program would look like something like Picasa or Lightroom. It means processing lot of pictures in a row
- I'd like the client to download the "image processor" to avoid uploading plenty of pictures on the server (which is slow and frustrating IMHO).
- I also have in mind to create a mobile version of the website
I don't know a lot about internet programming languages but here are my thoughts at the moment:
Flash: I think it would do, but I don't like it (not portable enough from what I read)
Java: This is the one I am thinking of at the moment. But I don't like the idea of asking users to download a third party if they don't have it.
HTML5 + Javascript: I don't what it means regarding Javascript capabilities. Would it be a pain?
Python, Ruby on Rail, C#: I don't know what it means to use them for web programming. I already used Python put as scripting language.
There are for sure other technologies that I am not aware of. Feel free to propose anything else that is mainstream enough to get good support on the internet :)!
Thank you for your help!
I hope you won't think it is a duplicate. I made some search and found this for ex:
Client-side image processing
=> But they already have their core processing since I have nothing!
Modern web browsers support html5 & javascript out of the box - older ones at least have support for javascript unless support for something truely ancient is desired - so considering the compatibility it should be the best one of these alternatives.
Flash needs a flash-plugin and a Java applet needs a jre-plugin.
Have never seen the 4th choice in client-based web-applications really, so not sure about how that would be done.