* Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
> On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 11:06, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> > * 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.
>
> Your argumentation is flawed, you are using a red-herring technique to
> justify how PEAR is not bloated by giving examples of its usefulness.
Actually, my argumentation was not specifically about 'PEAR is bloated',
but more along the lines of the many comments I've seen on this list to
the effect of 'PEAR sucks'. But I've also seen many comments like the
one from Catalin about 'PEAR... is kinda bloated', without indicating
why they think so. I should have been more clear in my rant that I'm
tired of hearing generalized negative statements against PEAR that are
then unqualified (i.e. no substative reasons given).
The statement 'PEAR is bloated' doesn't indicate in what way it is
bloated. Unfortunately, many read 'bloated' as a negative, and thus as an
indication that one should stay away from the code; thus may a developer
who has a problem that could be easily solved by PEAR code be turned
away from it.
Additionally, saying 'PEAR is bloated' doesn't take into account the
fact that PEAR is a large group of packages, and that each package
within PEAR should be judged on its own. For instance, I've heard and
read some good arguments as to why the PEAR package itself is bloated;
however, if you've ever taken a look at Cache_Lite, you'd probably agree
that it is anything *but* bloated. (The authors of that package put no
dependency on PEAR.php, and coded with a goal of efficiency and
optimization.)
<snip>
> > 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*.
>
> So far all the reasons you've given to indicate why PEAR is NOT bloated
> have nothing to do with why PEAR is or is not bloated. You have clearly
> indicated a passion for it, a usefulness from it, even established a
> decent amount of superiority in it, but if anything your arguments have
> indicated why it is bloated in many respects:
>
> - covers all of these special cases (and by virtue probably more)
> - I can see a point in wanting to keep code trimmed to necessary
> cases though
> - rather have all my bases covered
>
> It is my opinion and the opinion of many others that the fact that PEAR
> covers so many exceptional cases, the fact that PEAR implements such a
> generalize error handling system, the fact that PEAR do so much generic
> everything to make everone happy, that these elements that make it so
> versatile also make it feel bloated. It's like kicking a soccer ball to
> the goal, but rather than take the most direct route, you take the
> fringe route to cover all your bases...ultimately this is generally a
> longer path.
And, as I said, I can completely see your point. But, as noted above,
saying PEAR gives a false impression that *all* code in PEAR is bloated,
which is simply not the case.
On the other hand, you've also given a very nice overview of *why*
people feel some code in PEAR is bloated -- which is what I've been
driving at. You've qualified the statement, and that's worth much more
than simply tossing the phrase off. Thank you!
I guess the moral of the story is: we now have a thread we can point to
that shows some of the arguments for why some consider code in PEAR
bloated, but also that :
* bloat != lack of usefulness.
* not all code in PEAR is bloated
Thanks for your responses, Rob.
--
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
