[debaserab2]

If you like it because it's like rails, why not just use rails? The rails ecosystem is undoubtedly stronger than laravel's, and it's a more mature framework. I don't see where laravel fits in the spectrum of PHP frameworks.

[DigitalSea]

What makes you think I don't use Rails? I use whatever I think fits the purpose at hand. I sometimes use Rails for a project, sometimes I might use Node.js and other times I'll use PHP. It all depends on different factors like budgets, time, the task and team (if any).

Frameworks and languages are a lot like databases. They all achieve the same thing, they're just all slightly different and good for different purposes. I sometimes use MySQL, other times I'll use PostgreSQL, sometimes I might use a graph database like Neo4j or other times I might even use something like MongoDB.

The Rails community has been around a lot longer than Laravel's community, so you can't even compare them. The only community worthy of being compared to Rails is Codeigniter's and at the peak of Codeigniter's popularity, I would argue Codeigniter had the bigger community. Laravel is a mere couple of years old, the community is already pretty strong. Lets reevaluate soon when the right amount of time has passed and then see where the community is at. You only have to look at the amount of Github stars to see how popular it is.

[debaserab2]

So Laravel is a lot like Rails, but it doesn't compare to Rails because it's not matured yet. Ok..

MySQL vs PostgreSQL vs MongoDB vs Neo4j are all data stores with very different principles and goals. To say they all "achieve the same thing" is like saying an airplane is the same as a speedboat because they both get you from point A to point B.

I certainly believe that frameworks and libraries are tools for different problems and there isn't a one size fits all approach, I just have trouble discerning what problem Laravel is solving better than other frameworks or what makes it advantageous to use.

[sheetjs]

Using Rails requires Ruby, and arguably the PHP ecosystem is stronger than the Ruby ecosystem.

[teh_klev]

>"If you like it because it's like rails, why not just use rails?"

PHP is ubiquitous on shared hosting platforms, there aren't that many "shared" Rails hosters out there. Morts still use shared hosters.

[chatmasta]

This was a much more compelling argument when shared hosting was still cheaper than a VPS with root access. But now you can get a VPS from any slew of providers, like digitalocean, for $5 a month. Root access computing has never been more accessible, and shared hosting is rapidly losing any value proposition it once had. So targeting PHP purely because it's more ubiquitous on shared hosting than Rails, is making less and less sense.

[surreal]

That's still $60 a year, which is at least double the price of a simple reliable shared hosting package. The shared hosting has other conveniences too. I'm not saying it's without downsides, but there are cases for choosing it, and therefore for choosing PHP.

[jules]

You must value your time and sanity really low if you are willing to put up with PHP instead of Ruby for $30/year.

[weego]

Upload and run with all the security and management done for you is a great way to get going in web development. I don't feel that the idea that everyone doing reasonably simple PHP stuff should have root access 'makes sense' actually does.

[Kiro]

I don't want root access. I want to sign up, upload my files through FTP and have it working instantly without having to worry about anything else.

[chatmasta]

... which you can also do on platforms like digitalocean. Just spin up a preconfigured dokku droplet and git push.

[Kiro]

> Just spin up a preconfigured dokku droplet and git push.

Exactly the kind of things I don't want to be bothered with. I'm just saying that traditional web hosts suit my needs perfectly and DigitalOcean is no replacement.

[tragic]

So that would be "I don't want to be bothered with two clicks and a single terminal command." Really?

Leaving aside the whole "PHP sucks" vs "PHP is great/fine for my purposes" thing, this is really breathtaking. The fact that you can just FTP up your folder does not mean that's a sensible best-practice way to deploy anything, PHP, Ruby, Brainfuck or whatever you like. It isn't. FTP is insecure[0]. If you're balking at 'git push', then presumably you're balking at source control, which involves a lot of that sort of thing. That is just entirely unprofessional.

And 'no replacement'? FTPing a bunch of stuff into a public folder allows you to deploy something quickly and easily. So does the GP's suggested workflow. It is, exactly, a like for like replacement - except that it's a more secure and less fragile workflow.

I repeat - this has no bearing on the pro/anti-PHP holy war (I lean towards anti, but there's good PHP code out there, whatever. Hopefully a proper language spec will shove things in the right direction). If your argument for PHP is that it allows you to easily evade responsible working practices in software development, however, you're getting dangerously close to the anti-PHP stereotype of the average PHP developer.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Transfer_Protocol#Security

[will_work4tears]

That workflow is pretty outdated, you know. It's about akin to using tables for layout, and about as much of a no no. I know, git can be pretty confusing, but using version control, even in a one man shop, is a huge boon.

[ben0x539]

Compared to the php workflow, this is pure technobabble.

[jules]

This was already an outdated argument 5 years ago.

[colordrops]

If you already have a lot of existing PHP code it wouldn't make sense to move to Ruby just to adopt a framework.