I respect the work, but the samples look a lot like Symfony2, which has a huge community behind it. Sf2 has a learning curve but I'm not sure what problem Laravel solves that Sf2 (or its simplified kid brother Silex) doesn't already solve.
Something I find really strange/frustrating with a few recent frameworks (Laravel included) is their overuse of static methods. You have these singletons floating through the framework which maintain state (Request, Session, Logging etc) but you can only ever access them statically. Seems like bad practise to me.<p>What if you want to swap out Request for a mock during unit testing; since you've hard coded the Request class throughout your controllers how would you switch to a RequestMock class? What happens if you were dealing with more than one request (e.g in a HMVC setup).
It looks interesting enough but a few things put me off:<p>1). Rolling its own ORM rather than using Doctrine.<p>2). YATL (yet another templating language). I wish the PHP world would just standardise on Twig.<p>3). Localisation seems a bit basic at the moment and it's a shame you have to define messages in a PHP array rather than something more portable like YAML.<p>4). Would have been great if it used Monolog for logging.<p>On the plus side, I like the clean design and their approach for events looks cool.
It appears more functional in style: <a href="http://laravel.com/docs/routing#the-basics" rel="nofollow">http://laravel.com/docs/routing#the-basics</a><p>Good to see that.
Its a good framework but the development cycle is far to fast. Every few months there is a new full iteration where core functionality is added and development practices change.<p>I feel it would be far more usable and popular if the dev cycle slowed and the framework was allowed to mature and gain some traction.
Why are so many PHP 5.3 frameworks like this ignoring namespaces.<p><pre><code> class Admin_Controller extends Base_Controller
</code></pre>
Seriously, someone thinks this is OK?
Hey all, glad you find getlaravel.com useful. You could also checkout my blog which has 22+ Laravel tutorials including tips and tricks : <a href="http://daylerees.com" rel="nofollow">http://daylerees.com</a> . There is also an ebook available, linked from the site. Thanks!
I don't totally agree with the author: coming fresh to php 5.3 without prior contact with the elephant isn't going to protect anyone from php's inherent inconsistencies or legacy way-of-doing-things for very long. I am specifically thinking about the different naming conventions for functions (sometimes underscore, sometimes not ). Of course my remark isn't about Laravel itself.<p>With that said I used to try every "small but efficient" framework when I was a web developper and I would surely have tried this one with enthusiasm.
You should check out <a href="http://getlaravel.com/" rel="nofollow">http://getlaravel.com/</a> for some basic examples. I've been using Laravel for a few weeks now and I love it! The simplicity is next to none and it certainly has sped up my dev time.
I'd recommend trying it for a week and see how you get on, I think you'll fall for it too.
It looks pretty nice! How can I be sure this will continue to be maintained far into the future though? At least with Zend / Symfony I know they are not going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
It isn't new, but it's in the buzz. Let's face it, stateless MVC for the web is a local maximum. We can do much better, but not if we stick with this MVC crap.
So is it like making something similar to RoR? If yes then I am interested.<p>RoR has spoilt me. Anything that is similar to RoR is highly attracted to me.
"I was looking for a framework that supported PHP 5.3"<p>You didn't look hard enough - see Lithium<p><a href="http://lithify.me" rel="nofollow">http://lithify.me</a>
Validations in routes, you're doing it right <a href="https://github.com/laravel/pastes/blob/master/application/routes.php#L52-66" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/laravel/pastes/blob/master/application/ro...</a>