Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Meet The New PHP5 Toolkit, Pidget

Posted by timothy on from the wait'll-you-meet-my-pidget dept.

Squirrel482 writes "People who like toolkits like QT and GTK but are generally ticked of by the state of GUI design on the web should check out Pidget. It is a just released GUI toolkit (along the lines of QT for the web) for PHP5. It features good object oriented design and is probably one of if not the first publicly available project to take advantage of PHP5. It's in early development and is still a little rough around the edges, but definately worth checking out."

66 comments

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First (to) Piss!

  2. Promising! by BrynM · · Score: 1
    This looks like it could be really useful in the long run. I hope that it will let me avoid mixing so much PHP with Javascript for widget/form stuff. Anything to make that mixed code easier to read is a blessing. I'll be using the toolkit right away.

    On a side note, does anyone see any security problems with the code so far? That's my only real worry. Also, should someone build some DB classes and hooks into this for an all-in-one type of addition. PHP can begin to be an include mess after a while (see previous statment about readable code), which I'd like to avoid.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:Promising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok suck up. Isn't there an ass in the world for you to kiss.

    2. Re:Promising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you bish! You're fucking religishitty. Go kill yourself

      Fucking ass, you piss me off

  3. Amazed by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    ...that a server side widget toolkit is a usable thing.

    All my instincts tell me that network latency and screen refreshes would be much better done if the widget manipulation were client side. And I'm sure this is still the case.

    That this kind of thing is used is a testiment to how client-side web widgets have not been living up to their potential. Security problems, perhaps (ActiveX)? It's not like PHP applications come in with a squeaky clean reputation on the security front, either...

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Amazed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security based on PHP or the person writing it?

    2. Re:Amazed by Bishop923 · · Score: 1

      From what I have read, its not like this is refreshing in realtime. The widget set is used serverside to render a static HTML file which is shot out to the browser.

    3. Re:Amazed by Webmonger · · Score: 1

      I was reading about another DHTML toolkit recently (damned if I can remember the name!), but what they did was mostly client-side. They used a hidden frame to communicate with the server when data needed to be updated, but otherwise, the widgets responded with no net lag.

    4. Re:Amazed by lkehresman · · Score: 1

      Centrallix - http://www.centrallix.net

    5. Re:Amazed by TheSpunkyEnigma · · Score: 1

      You may actually be thinking of echo.

    6. Re:Amazed by Webmonger · · Score: 1

      Thanks-- that was it.

    7. Re:Amazed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you think about it for a moment, you can not have any different widgets than HTML gives you. Sure you can have imagemaps and popups using JS but thats it. If you want anything fancier, you'd have to go to Flash.

      Anyway, Pidget is really a template "engine" for PHP5.

  4. Extremely cool by fault0 · · Score: 1

    Looking forward to using this once it sufficiently maturizes (i'll have to try and see how mature it really is).

  5. I wish people would make up their minds by ChaseTec · · Score: 1

    Pidget sounds a lot like Java ServerFaces so it's nothing new. What I find annoying is that the "best" way to make a dynamic site keeps changing. Last week it was to have your site generate XML and use style sheet translation, this week it's to assemble objects on the server and have the server convert all the objects to html.

    --
    My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
    1. Re:I wish people would make up their minds by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      "What I find annoying is that the "best" way to make a dynamic site keeps changing."

      Maybe because there is no "best way"...

      There is significant impedence mismatch between an interactive GUI and a server-side-generated UI, these frameworks are just a way to cover it up. What is really needed is some sort of universal declarative UI language - and again, there are several contenders (XPCOM/XUL for example, Tim Berners Lee is pushing cURL, which is a mixed UI/content language), but there is no current standard.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    2. Re:I wish people would make up their minds by sporty · · Score: 1

      The best way is to simply keep the data away from your view. That way, you can replace one without having to affect the other unless your business logic changes.

      XML + XSLT, some teplate engine..

      assembling objects and then converting it to HTML is no more efficent, but if you want to move a submit button from the bottom of your screen to the top, you affect both.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    3. Re:I wish people would make up their minds by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Don't make the mistake of equating 'newest' with 'best.'

    4. Re:I wish people would make up their minds by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      XML + XSLT, some teplate engine..

      That's exactly what I do, from content to presentation:

      • xml Data
      • xsl
      • css

      For software, it's Apache / PHP / sabolotron / and movable type to generate the xml

      The following helps, too:

      Action proc-xml /path/to/handler.php
      Addhandler proc-xml .xml
      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    5. Re:I wish people would make up their minds by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 1

      Agreed that there is a big impedence mismatch here... but if you haven't already, take a look at ASP.NET Web Forms. It does a very surprisingly good job of mimicking traditional UI programming frameworks, and with a relative minimum of ugly hackery under the covers.

  6. Semi-Offtopic by phlyingpenguin · · Score: 1

    How is the stability on PHP5 doing? I haven't gotten to try it out just yet, but this interests me. The stability of this library also interests me of course! :)

    Any user opinions there?

  7. I don't get it... by Visigothe · · Score: 1

    I checked out the site, and it seems that all of this could be done in plain old CSS. Why change PHP code at all when you can alter the look/position of the widgets in CSS and be done with it.

    While most people plop presentation logic in with their PHP code doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. Use PHP to generate XHTML and use CSS to alter the presentation. No javascript needed, no multiple versions of a site for various browsers, no special "light" edition... handle it all in CSS.

    Use standards, people!

    --
    Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    1. Re:I don't get it... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Yep, then all we need is for the most popular browser (by far) to correctly support CSS.

      I'll hold my breath, for I look good in blue. :)

    2. Re:I don't get it... by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      For the most part, IE 6 supports CSS "well enough". It is possible to create a site that uses XHTML Transitional and CSS that degrades well on all browsers [including the cursed NS4].

      The real problem is that UI designers and programmers want to do what they know how to do, rather than consider the alternative.

      Take a look at the following sites for additional information:

      --
      Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    3. Re:I don't get it... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      The key phrases you used are "For the most part" and "well enough." Having done far more than my fair share of XHTML & CSS work, I know that IE6's CSS implementation is just funky enough to cause problems. Part of the problem may be that I'm overly picky. I want it to actually work as it _should_. *shrug*

    4. Re:I don't get it... by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did use those words for a reason, but think about it...

      Does it make more sense to create an XHTML/CSS site that can work on *every* browser, even if degraded, or a site that only works on 1 browser, and breaks when you want to update it?

      There are many many ways to "hack" the CSS to make things work with IE and the "broken box model". Of course, you shouldn't have to "hack" anything, but that isn't the current reality.

      If Wired* and ESPN* and others can pull off complex XHTML/CSS based sites, perhaps you are a bit too picky. That happens, and that isn't anything I can change. I can ask you to consider a CSS layout that works across all browsers as a design limitation. This will allow you to become more creative, with the added bonus of saving bandwidth and easy updating.

      *As of this writing, it seems neither ESPN nor wired.com validate using the W3C validator. They are, however, CSS based. Wired's problem seems to be the lack of encoding the & properly in URLs. Blarg!

      --
      Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    5. Re:I don't get it... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      > Does it make more sense to create an XHTML/CSS site that can
      > work on *every* browser, even if degraded, or a site that only
      > works on 1 browser, and breaks when you want to update it?

      Those aren't the only choices available, though.

      Depending on how often a site is updated, XHTML/CSS may not be necessary for ease of maintenance. When that is the case, I can often make something work pixel-perfect & identical on just about any browser by using plain ole HTML 4.01. If one has to make a bunch of CSS exceptions for every browser case out there, the the bandwidth savings may not occur, also.

    6. Re:I don't get it... by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can make pixel perfect layouts in HTML 4.01 that will work in Netscape and IE.

      But what about other browsers, like the browser on your Palm, or the browser hooked into a screen reader, or webTV? Does the layout scale? With CSS it does, both up and down.

      I agree with you, in that if you don't update your site, it really doesn't matter what HTML version you code against. But what happens when you want to update your look, but keep the content? You could change your CSS once, in one place, and have a totally new site for all the pages. Using structural XHTML, you have that option.

      check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ for an example of this in action.

      --
      Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    7. Re:I don't get it... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      > But what about other browsers, like the browser on your Palm, or the browser hooked into a screen reader, or webTV? Does the layout scale? With CSS it does, both up and down.

      If I know it's going to be something used with those, yeah, I can make them scale pretty well.

      > I agree with you, in that if you don't update your site, it really doesn't matter what HTML version you code against. But what happens when you want to update your look, but keep the content?

      That depends on how you manage your content, and how clean your code is. I've worked on sites with thousands of pages with HTML 4 that didn't rely on CSS to be updated quickly. If your content is coming out of a database, it's _really_ easy to just change your output template and be done with it, and avoid the CSS nightmares.

      If your content isn't coming out of a database, then your code needs to be designed for easy cut and paste. No, it's not pleasant, but you can do a relatively straightforward template change within a day on sites that have hundreds of pages, if you've done your work correctly.

      Now, I'm not advocating that all sites should be done this way, just that it's an option that is more realistic than going to extreme lengths with CSS-based templates. It seems to be an option that too many developers aren't even considering, when in many cases, it could be easily the best fit for their needs. I've been doing this stuff since '94, so I assure you, I know of whence I speak, and I've worked on sites that are frickin' HUGE, to sites that are amazingly small.

      It's too bad that HTML 5 never showed up, but then again, considering the skills of the W3C HTML working group, I doubt it'd have done much good, anyway. *shrug*

    8. Re:I don't get it... by ruineraz · · Score: 1

      ONE TIP: use the STRICT DTD declaration and it will get IE to work alot more like other browsers as far as CSS goes. If you don't delcare, use loose or traditional, then there's a world of difference between IE CSS & other CSS implmentations.

      But if you do this, you have to make sure you CSS is pristine. In other words... "border: 1px;" no longer works, you have to specify "border: 1px solid #000000;".

      Also, there can be no spaces between amounts and units... example: "font-size: 12 px;" won't work, but "font-size: 12px;" will.

    9. Re:I don't get it... by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      First, I'd like to say, I am enjoying this thread. It's nice to have a rational conversation with someone who can create a good argument. Thanks!

      regarding odd user-agents:

      If I know it's going to be something used with those, yeah, I can make them scale pretty well.

      But isn't that the point? you'll never know how people will view your site. Wanting to deliver content to everyone is a good idea. Why shut someone out? I've said it before, but with CSS you can deliver appropriate content to a user-agent.

      That depends on how you manage your content, and how clean your code is. I've worked on sites with thousands of pages with HTML 4 that didn't rely on CSS to be updated quickly. If your content is coming out of a database, it's _really_ easy to just change your output template and be done with it, and avoid the CSS nightmares.

      I agree. I am also saying that XHTML and CSS allow you to write cleaner, structural code. Your code can be managed more easily if you separate presentation from structure. Global Find and Replace isn't an elegant solution.

      Database-driven sites are prime candidates for CSS, as you can save massive amounts of bandwidth by removing all the extraneous markup needed to style the page. The removal of the tag alone saves quite a bit on each page delivery. Think of it similarly to the stupid MS advert that "saves a nickle"

      Now, I'm not advocating that all sites should be done this way, just that it's an option that is more realistic than going to extreme lengths with CSS-based templates. It seems to be an option that too many developers aren't even considering, when in many cases, it could be easily the best fit for their needs. I've been doing this stuff since '94, so I assure you, I know of whence I speak, and I've worked on sites that are frickin' HUGE, to sites that are amazingly small.

      The option that is more realistic is the XHTML Transitional doctype. This allows you to still "cheat" and create a table-based layout while using CSS to do the rest. This is the option that most people use, as it is easy to transition to from legacy markup, and works well on legacy browsers [mostly due to the "cheating" described above]. For the record, I've been doing this as long as you have, doing huge sites [and not so huge] sites as well. When you have a site that has millions of pageviews a day, bandwidth becomes a serious issue.

      It's too bad that HTML 5 never showed up, but then again, considering the skills of the W3C HTML working group, I doubt it'd have done much good, anyway. *shrug*

      There will never be "HTML 5". The successor HTML 4.01 is XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.1 is out [not Recommended, IIRC] as well, although it is different enough from XHTML 1.0 that makes it incompatible with every user-agent out there [deprecating the "a" and "img" tags, for expample]

      --
      Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    10. Re:I don't get it... by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      point of clarification:

      The removal of the tag alone saves quite a bit on each page delivery.

      should read:

      The removal of the <font> tag alone saves quite a bit on each page delivery.

      The Slashdot filter nuked it

      --
      Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    11. Re:I don't get it... by el+pedro · · Score: 1

      If I know it's going to be something used with those, yeah, I can make them scale pretty well. If your content isn't coming out of a database, then your code needs to be designed for easy cut and paste. No, it's not pleasant, but you can do a relatively straightforward template change within a day on sites that have hundreds of pages, if you've done your work correctly. With CSS you can make one change that will apply to hundreds of pages now, and hundreds in the future, regardless of the initial use of the webpage. That's the point, centralization and encapsulation, the same thing OOP people tout. The major problem that I see with CSS is compatability (as has already been mentioned.) If you make a webpage using the latest CSS things, and your client running IE sees a bland, static page, are you just to tell him/her to switch browsers? Talking about the future is great, but what should web designers be doing NOW?

    12. Re:I don't get it... by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      Yes, considering the fact that the '&' in urls should be a ';', they are a bit behind the times. Perhaps it's time to toss the circa-1996 'CGI Programming Unleashed!' bible and move to something a little more recent.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    13. Re:I don't get it... by shfted! · · Score: 1
      If your content isn't coming out of a database, then your code needs to be designed for easy cut and paste. No, it's not pleasant, but you can do a relatively straightforward template change within a day on sites that have hundreds of pages, if you've done your work correctly.
      Or just 1 minute if you did it with server-side includes, or use sed or a text editor that supports running a regular expression replacement through multiple files at once (e.g. UltraEdit on Windows).
      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
  8. Speration of data and stuff by sporty · · Score: 1

    This doesnt' seperate design from code. Infact it just keeps them tied together. I can't take a program using pidget that dynamically gets data and throw it at something else.

    XSLT does this, but let's skip XSLT. Let's use FreeMarker. It's a java templating engine. It has a little logic in it, but nothing like jsp and scriptlets. If I don't like the layout of how things are, I can leave my program the same and replace the tempalte.

    This doesn't facilitate keeping data seperate unless you have the due-dillagence to create a Render.class and throw all your data at that. This feels more like CGI.pm where you tell it to render last.

    When possible, you'd like to not have your data so close to your layout. Unfortunately, with QT, GTK, Java, you can't help that. So please, don't claim that it seperates it when it doesn't. All it does is give you another way to create HTML, something that can be done with true seperation with XSLT or some php template engine.

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    1. Re:Speration of data and stuff by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Pidget doesn't separate design from code,
      because Pidget isn't for business logic.
      It's for GUIs. Use a template engine
      like YAPTER along side Pidget.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Speration of data and stuff by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      I use CGI.pm and render on the fly all the time. I do, however dump everything into a series of large strings and only report them at the end, so you may be using cgi.pm differently.

      On very nice feature of CGI.pm is that it generates xHTML 1.x Transitional code. Very nice to have.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
  9. Language or programmer fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PHP suffers from its "best practices" being scattered around various sources on the web, and not one central place to look when a "what's the most secure way to accomplish X" question comes up. Technically, you're right then, it's a programmer problem. But until the language designers, advocates, and general community rally around security being Job #1, you can expect more insecure apps to be developed with PHP.

    Safe mode, my ass.

    1. Re:Language or programmer fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as register_globals is supported, PHP will be insecure. They need to kill this and damn all those broken legacy applications.

    2. Re:Language or programmer fault? by SiMac · · Score: 1

      It's off by default. Turn it off and pay the consequences.

  10. From the README by ptaff · · Score: 1

    Pidget is a graphical toolkit that abstracts HTML in PHP5

    So it's just another templating toolkit for PHP.

    You don't have to know HTML (but make sure you learn pRadio, pSelect, pTextarea)

    Won't make designers quit their Photoshops and Dreamweavers

    1. Re:From the README by lkehresman · · Score: 1

      Not really.. It's not just another templating engine. It is designed for web applications (as opposed to web pages) so that a standardized user interface can be carried throughout the app. This can be done with templates, but it's not ideal.

    2. Re:From the README by Micah · · Score: 1

      If it really supports data-driven widgets, that would be *extremely* useful! I'm tired of coding PHP forms that keep inserting/updating a database...

  11. Use Logicreate! by Doug+Dante · · Score: 1

    Logicreate is a similar free PHP tool kit that works with your existing PHP-4 installation.

    http://logicreate.com/

    Here are some sites created with it:

    http://tapinternet.com/index.php/clients/

    Ty uses it to handle all of the online ordering for Beanie Babies, which can exceed $10 Million/month.

    One cool feature is the context sensitive search. Since it presents different views to customers, partners, and internal people, when the CEO searches for "Secret Project" he sees the secret project, but when customers search, they don't see it.

    DISCLAIMER: I have no direct finanical involement with Logicreate or Tap Internet. Well, they once bought me pizza.

    --
    The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
    1. Re:Use Logicreate! by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the kind words. We'll buy you some more pizza next time you're in town. :)

      In all seriousness, we could use more contributors and testers for LC - all you slashdotters into PHP are welcome to join us at http://www.logicreate.com

      --
      creation science book
    2. Re:Use Logicreate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your post about logicreate is more interesting than the pidget stuff. How come no one submits stuff to slashdot like this......something I could actually use?

      FYI, the PBDO stuff listed on logicreate site looks pretty cool, and it appears they've built a distance learning system using it that is going to be open sourced, now that is cool. I hate blackboard and webct. I hope they can get some colleges to adopt it and use it rather than spending thousands of dollars like the school I work at.

      My $.02.

  12. Doesn't bode well... by nickos · · Score: 1

    Those left-hand-nav links don't work on Opera 6.11. Ho hum.

    1. Re:Doesn't bode well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jeez ... upgrade already .. Opera7 is pretty good

    2. Re:Doesn't bode well... by randumb_surfer · · Score: 1

      They're figgin' anchor tags. You're telling me that Opera 6.11, the browser that touts itsself as the most standards compliant browser out there, does not support simple anchor tags? I'm having a really hard time believing that.

      The following html is copied and pasted straight from the site:

      <a href="index.php">Information</a><br&gt ;
      <a href="download.php">Download</a><br&gt ;
      <a href="credits.php">Credits</a><br>
      <a href="shots.php">Screen Shots</a><br>
      <br><a href="contrib.php">Contribute</a><br&g t;
      <a href="lists.php">Mailing Lists</a><br>

    3. Re:Doesn't bode well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine with Opera 7.20.

    4. Re:Doesn't bode well... by nickos · · Score: 1

      They weren't at the time. See Googles cache:
      http://www.google.com.ni/search?q=cache:ww w.pidget .org

      <table width=100% cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 border=0>
      <!-- Information -->
      <tr><td class="SbNormal"
      onMouseOver="Over(this)"
      onMouseOut="Out(this)"
      onClick="Click(this, 'index.php')">
      Information
      </td></tr>
      <!-- Download -->
      <tr><td class="SbNormal"
      onMouseOver="Over(this)"
      onMouseOut="Out(this)"
      onClick="Click(this, 'download.php')">
      Download
      </td></tr>
      <!-- Credits -->
      <tr><td class="SbNormal"
      onMouseOver="Over(this)"
      onMouseOut="Out(this)"
      onClick="Click(this, 'credits.php')">

      Credits
      </td></tr>
      </td></tr></table><br>
      <table width=100% cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 border=0>
      <!-- Contribute -->
      <tr><td class="SbNormal"
      onMouseOver="Over(this)"
      onMouseOut="Out(this)"
      onClick="Click(this, 'contrib.php')">
      Contribute
      </td></tr>
      <!-- Mailing Lists -->
      <tr><td class="SbNormal"
      onMouseOver="Over(this)"
      onMouseOut="Out(this)"
      onClick="Click(this, 'lists.php')">
      Mailing Lists
      </td></tr>

      </table>

    5. Re:Doesn't bode well... by randumb_surfer · · Score: 1

      How was I to know? :)

    6. Re:Doesn't bode well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look before you squawk, fucking retard.

  13. CSS is for logic/display seperation by Jotham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Site seems quite light on details right now - I might check it out once they update the screenshots to show it doing something interesting/unique. As it stands now it just looks like a toolkit for people that don't know how to make full use of CSS.

    1. Re:CSS is for logic/display seperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is "separation" and not "seperation."

  14. What I really want by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

    Is some of the stuff proposed in xHTML 2. I really want to write and serve RDF as my default content type on my site, while transforming it to xHTML for user agents not NetNewsWire / Amphetadesk, but a lot of the fields that RDF uses have some interesting near-equivalents in the next xHTML. Also, I'm really looking forward to object fallback where an video falls back to an image, which falls back to text if need be. Nice stuff, and good for semantics and screen readers.

    --
    Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    1. Re:What I really want by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      While I understand what you are saying, and while this idea doesn't *quite* fit your problem, The theory is that you can do this [DRF/RSS to XHTML] today, via server-side XSLT.

      I too am looking forward to <object> tags and what they can do. I think it will streamline the whole plug-in process.

      Having MS decide that they will not update IE prettymuch prevents anyone from adopting it though. Gods, I hate monopolies. The only think I can think of to "break" the MS stranglehold is to purposfully make markup that breaks in IE, complete with a "best viewed with XXXXX" badge. Of course, standards are why we moved away from that bollocks in the first place.

      It's difficult to win in this situation.

      --
      Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
    2. Re:What I really want by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm having problems with sabolotron and alternate namespaces inside of a file, so i'd rather go xml->rdf xml or xml->xhtml based on user agent.

      By alternate namespaces, I mean any root tag with an xmlns declaration in it. sabolotron cannot grab one of these as a root node, and instead takes whatever the default action is in the xsl file. Took me quite a while to find this problem, and it was frustrating to try to work around it.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
  15. Yawn. Another reinvented wheel. by Hero+Zzyzzx · · Score: 1

    Nothing that can't already done with any number of form automation/templatting systems already out there. And where's the docs?

    I'll stick to mod_perl, CGI::Application, HTML::Template and CGI.pm. But that's my opinion. Everything I could possibly need for dynamic forms with flexible presentation.

  16. Let's start cooperating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are most Linux distributions at least 1.8GB? Because people keep creating ad-hoc languages and toolkits. Once you create a new programming language or toolkit, it's very hard to kill it... If we cooperated on the non-important stuff, things would be better. But now we just have fragmented languages and toolkits.

  17. Difference from PEAR::HTML_Form? by lux55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious (since their web site doesn't offer much info, and the downloaded src didn't offer much more) as to what the difference is between this and these:

    PEAR::HTML_Form
    PEAR::HTML_QuickForm

    On the surface, they seem to solve the exact same problem.

    --
    putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
  18. Re:For fuck's sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, someone is working on it.
    It's just going to take them a lot longer to get it done.

  19. if you are tired from PHP by panserg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... then you may (should, must) appreciate Zope, especially its Plone portal implementation.

    You may be interested alos in looking at an example of how and why the developer of formerly famous PHP-based forum has moved (re-wrote) the whole thing to Plone.

    Here are some Zope successfull stories from the real market.

    --
    "I shall explain this by waving my hands about in an appropriate manner." -- Cambridge University Math Dept.
  20. ASP.NET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds suspiciously like ASP.NET for PHP

  21. InterJinn is so much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you go InterJinn you never go back (unless your name's Arnold). It rolls form creation, validation, templating, etc. etc into a nice consistent framework. I've been using it these past few weeks and all I can say is wow!

    http://www.interjinn.com