* Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> : > On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 10:32, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > * Catalin Trifu <catalin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : > > > I also tend to stay away from PEAR, which is kinda bloated for my > > > taste, except the Log package. > > > > <rant> > > I hear that a lot on this list, and I don't understand the reasoning > > behind such comments -- perhaps because nobody offers any reasoning, > > only the opinion? > > > > I'm a PEAR user, and I've found the packages anything *but* bloated. > > Granted, I only use a subset of PEAR, but that subset has made mycoding > > easier. I use DB, Log, Mail, Mail_MIME, HTML_QuickForm, Cache_Lite, and > > Pager daily; additionally, we use custom PEAR error handlers to catch > > errors generated by these packages, log them, and display custom error > > pages. If I'd had to write the functionality I have readily available in > > these packages, I wouldn't have a job right now. They've helped me meet > > numerous deadlines. It may be my opinion, but I've also given some reasoning for my opinion: help in meeting deadlines, centralized error handling, and variety of packages. I've helped to *qualify* my opinion. I'll do more of that below. > No matter how many deadlines PEAR helps you meet and how much you may > find the PEAR modules indispensable, you are expressing a subjective > opinion unrelated to the OP's comment about bloated. A package can be > very bloated and still be extremely useful to someone who doesn't have > the time or the ability (not to say you don't have the ability) to > implement similar functionality themself. Correct; ability isn't the problem; time often is. <aside> However, I also find that I start by creating some functionality myself, and then as special cases start popping up, modifying, adding on... and then discovering that an equivalent PEAR package already exists that covers all these special cases and a number I hadn't thought of. (Pager comes to mind). I often wonder if what is meant by 'bloat' is that those claiming 'bloat' feel that the PEAR code covers too many special cases -- cases they have not encountered or do not expect to encounter. Personally, I feel that I'd rather have all my bases covered; I can see a point in wanting to keep code trimmed to the necessary cases, though. </aside> > Additionally PEAR does present a centralized location for common > functionality with good peer review, This is one of the selling points for PEAR; many eyes looking at the code, including people who aren't invested in the particular problem. Having the diversity of reviewers often makes for better code. > however IMHO I side with the OP with respect to much of PEAR being > bloated. Then explain what you mean by 'bloated'. Just throwing out that phrase doesn't give anybody any extra information -- just your opinion. Can you give some examples to *qualify* your statement that PEAR is bloated? That was the main thrust of my rant -- people throwing out unqualified opinion statements like 'PEAR sucks' or 'PEAR is bloated' without explaining *why*. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney | WEBSITES: Webmaster and IT Specialist | http://www.garden.org National Gardening Association | http://www.kidsgardening.com 802-863-5251 x156 | http://nationalgardenmonth.org mailto:matthew@xxxxxxxxxx | http://vermontbotanical.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
