A look at modern PHP

Re:A look at modern PHP by hnarn on Tuesday May 05, 2020 @05:58AM (#23078270)

> And last, people compare it to languages like Rust or Go since they consider those are "innovative". I hope everyone understands that a language is fit for a certain type of task. PHP was created for website development, and in that area neither Go or Rust are even close to matching it in terms of maturity.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but "website development" is a very broad category. For example, if you definitely need a website with server-side logic and database connections, yes, that's where PHP will shine. However, if you need a more or less static website for your restaurant or portfolio, is it really as straightforward to say "PHP is for website development, write your website in PHP"?

I want to be very clear that I'm differentiating between use cases here, but for something like a technical documentation website, a status page or something similar that does not require server-side logic and databases, I would much prefer using Hugo or some other type of static site generator, and not because PHP is bad but because we're still talking about "website development" but just not necessarily the kind of website that PHP was made to build.

That being said, there are of course static site generators in PHP as well (and probably every other language out there), but Hugo has a special place in my heart just because of the speed of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A look at modern PHP by thawaway1837 on Tuesday May 05, 2020 @08:27AM (#23079247)

For a more or less static website, what’s probably the best bet, and has been the standard for many years, largely because it allows the non technical restaurant owner to easily update and make changes, is Wordpress.

In which case you’re back again in PHP land.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A look at modern PHP by hnarn on Tuesday May 05, 2020 @12:14PM (#23081622)

Can you elaborate on why you would recommend Wordpress as the "best bet" for a "more or less static site"? I feel like I'm of the completely opposite opinion, that introducing something as modular and dependent as Wordpress for something "more or less static" is just asking for trouble down the line.

In my mind a "more or less static website" will not require a database, it will not require logic server-side, and it will not require the possibility to add-on plugins for extra functionality.

What's beautiful to me about static websites is that the threat vector is now suddenly nothing but the web server, and when you're serving static web pages that's a pretty small threat vector if you've configured it correctly. As soon as you blur the line between "web site" and "web application" and start including things like databases, forms and API:s you're in a completely different territory and I kind of feel like you should choose that because you really, really need it. Not just as a default.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A look at modern PHP by debaserab2 on Tuesday May 05, 2020 @12:38PM (#23081896)

WP is not in anyway static (without plugins) and you will quickly realize that when your site deals with a non-trivial amount of traffic and it completely seizes up.

WP hasn't been a good choice for small business owners for a long time - web security is hard, and hardening a WP install is not simple. There's a ton of options out there that do everything WP does without the overhead: squarespace, weebly, wix, shopify, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]