PEAR: yes or no?

[tata668]

Some PEAR packages seam really cool but I worry about my code starting to be too *dependant* on PEAR if I start using it. You know, the way it handles errors, etc.

What are your thoughts? Recommendations?

I'm a newbie with PEAR.

[orion_rus]

I'm a newbie too. But FormBuilder is absoulutely great and then it be releases it should have a great advantage. It can save you months of coding
I'm for it!

[vabtz]

I am not a PEAR fan personally

I prefer to just use what I find good and maintain my own libraries I use from project to project.

[jusdrum]

The most useful parts of PEAR for me are the Database interface libraries. This makes writing web applications that use a database in the back-end a breeze. As for any other PEAR modules, I haven't used enough of them to give you an informed opinion.

The ultimate combination is using PEAR DB modules and the Smarty templates system to write web applications. It saves hours of development time.

[Timotheos]

If you watch the developer news over at Planet PHP you'll see a lot of news for Pear. There's even a side box listing recent Pear/Pecl releases. There's a lot of developement, support and enthuasiasm for it so I don't think you'll go wrong with drawing on it for some libraries.

Tim

[ironik]

PEAR libraries are pretty cool, but when you write code using them it makes that code less portable.

In my situation I'm writing an application that will be used by multiple people so I can't be certain that the servers they host on have the PEAR package already installed... which kind of rules out using it.

[jatar_k]

I have never been sold on PEAR, all it has ever given me is bloat and headaches and I refuse to use it.

personal opinion only, lots of people use and like it.

[tata668]

Timotheos:

There's a lot of developement, support and enthuasiasm for it so I don't think you'll go wrong with drawing on it for some libraries.

You can say the same thing about Smarty, and I wouldn't use it.

I like that PHP is light, fast, easy to deploy and easy to modify. I try to avoid any addon that would decrease those features.

But again, I'm new to PEAR so my mind is not done about it yet.

[vabtz]

Smarty is a pretty damn good template system IMO

For an alternative to that try the template engine in phpbb

[tata668]

I've never said Smarty was not good.
I just say it's too big for my personnal taste. I prefer a plain php template engine.

But anyway, I'm looking for PEAR opinions here please! :)

[dreamcatcher]

I`m no PEAR fan either. I prefer Savant 2 myself, but each to his own.

[Timotheos]

You can say the same thing about Smarty, and I wouldn't use it.

I agree. I haven't used PEAR either all though I've been tempted ;-) I think the original post was fearing some sort of dependancy on PEAR. All I'm saying is if you like it don't be afraid to use it.

I'm a Savant fan too. Interesting that the developer of Savant just started working on an application framework called SolarPHP. It's similar in goals to PEAR and Horde.

Tim

[dreamcatcher]

Savant`s author (Paul M Jones) also offers great support. Whenever I have had any questions and e-mailed him, he has responded so fast.

Its like text editors, once you find the one you like, no matter how many others you try, you always keep coming back to the one you like best.

dc

[tata668]

What is the advantage of the Savant template engin over a really simple one [massassi.com]?

[Timotheos]

What is the advantage of the Savant template engin over a really simple one?

That article is good and really shows what's at the heart of Savant. So what's the advantage? The only one I can see is its plugin feature and the ability to have a compiler if needed (usually not). Savant really is that simple and well documented (I like that).

Tim

[Warboss Alex]

The code bloat in PEAR isn't worth it. If you like the PEAR classes, just write your own based off them, but limit them to the bare minimum of your own needs. You can always add to them later.

Custom-scripted, good OO designed-code will always be better than existing libraries, which are designed to be comprehensive, portable, but for these reasons also inefficient (perfomance-wise).