ProcessWire on the web

[kongondo]

new article in Noupe:

http://www.noupe.com/cms/processwire-cms-with-a-difference-77309.html

Thanks. Good intro albeit with a few issues I don't agree with (e.g. it is not easy to upgrade PW!). Yeah, maybe for the point-and-click crowd?

[ryan]

It seems like a generally good review, and very glad to see it. This is just the sort of exposure that really helps the project, so I'm very thankful for the review. Though it also seems like the review may have been based on a very brief experience with ProcessWire (maybe the demo?), as there's nothing to indicate the author(s) used it to develop anything, or know the system particularly well. I think this was primarily a good surface review (and nothing wrong with that). ProcessWire may be fine when you look at it on the surface, but it really shines when you actually use it, know it and develop in it. I think this is something most ProcessWire reviews miss. (CMSCritic.com is the only one I know that really gets it and has put ProcessWire through its paces). For example, the comment about global variables, among other things, seem a little out of left field to someone that knows ProcessWire well. I'm glad they thought our API was interesting, but I'm not sure they understood they understood the extent to which this is the driver of the system. The review stated the documentation was lacking, but I bet the author(s) didn't read the docs. People that do commit and read the docs tend to get a ton out of it. We probably wouldn't have nearly as active of a forum if everyone read the docs… for the record, I prefer having an active forum and getting people involved in the community, even if many questions can be answered in the docs. If we have a docs problem I think it's one of digestibility and structure rather than one of documentation scope. Outside of these things I think the author did a good job with the review and got a lot of points right. In fairness, if I was reviewing another CMS, it's unlikely I'd go develop a full site in it or read all the docs, etc. ProcessWire is a system where it's really about what's underneath rather than what's on the surface, and I think that's something very difficult to capture or communicate in review. 

[kongondo]

Three times I started to post my comments after the review but gave up. If you can describe PW API as only "decent" then you clearly haven't used the system! Anyway, could be a matter of language. Wanted also to comment on the issue of pages  which we know is an abstract term. Also, wanted to say you can save other stuff in db if you don't care about urls. In addition, there are PW projects that have >100k pages! It's not just for small projects. Was tickled by "updating PW requires tinkering with the system" . Anyway, I'm now preaching to the choir . You are right though; the exposure's good. There have been many re-tweets about the post.

[Soma]

There seems to be a flood of tweets from the previous and there's a new "review" http://wpdaily.co/processwire/

[pwired]

ProcessWire may be fine when you look at it on the surface, but it really shines when you actually use it, know it and develop in it. I think this is something most ProcessWire reviews miss.

Let's face this especially more for processwire than for modx evo: the more you know about php and coding in general, the more you can do with processwire.

The review stated the documentation was lacking, but I bet the author(s) didn't read the docs.

Lot's of valuable info, examples, tips and tricks to apply the "open" potential of processwire, both for newbies and rookies are simply not in the docs but scattered all over the forum. Therefore I started indexing that info, tips and tricks and keep it on a pendrive, always available. Before I start to do something with processwire I first read through all the examples, tips and tricks otherwise I would not use half of it's potential.

ProcessWire is a system where it's really about what's underneath rather than what's on the surface, and I think that's something very difficult to capture or communicate in review.

That is so true, see also above commenets. And it shows that this forum is filled with a lot of experienced and skilled coders who take their skills and experience for granted while newbies have difficulty to follow and keep up with them but would really want to because of pw's big potential.

[totoff]

Let's face this especially more for processwire than for modx evo: the more you know about php and coding in general, the more you can do with processwire.

Let's face it, the more you know about driving the faster you can drive your Porsche. If you are not skilled enough, you might get your car to 120 mpH, and that's your limit.

Whatever product you build, you always have to compromise between accessibility (may be used by everyone) and scaleability (not for everyone, but the sky is the limit). PW has opted for the second route and that's a wise decision imho - though it clearly limits accessibility/popularity.

There are enough CMS out there with which the less experienced can click together a website. A good example is Contao (though it is a good system with a strong foundation). Need a quick mockup, site structure, easy to use and maintain? Done in a second with Contao. Need a headline in two colors and therefore a nested span? And the whole thing must be maintainable by the client? Uh, think twice and check you budget again. No, from my point of view, the market gap is there for a system like PW, not for another click-ready-solution.

And it shows that this forum is filled with a lot of experienced and skilled coders who take their skills and experience for granted while newbies have difficulty to follow and keep up with them but would really want to because of pw's big potential.

I'm not a coder at all, my PHP skills are on a very basic level. But I feel as if I always get the support I need though it remains true that everybody has to climb his learning curve by himself. That's the price you have to pay for an open system.

Just my two cents.

[ryan]

Lot's of valuable info, examples, tips and tricks to apply the "open" potential of processwire, both for newbies and rookies are simply not in the docs but scattered all over the forum.

I think that this is for folks that prefer to copy/paste stuff. But for people that fully read and understand the docs, they can make their own examples, tips and tricks. They are the ones here having the most fun and responding to all the questions.

Many assume the system to be much more complex than it actually is simply because they are giving more weight to tutorials and copy/paste snippets of code from the forum rather than the bigger picture that is emphasized by the docs. Though I know everyone learns differently. For me personally, I don't learn well from tutorials or snippets… even I get lost in most of the ProcessWire tutorials I've tried to follow. I need to know the big picture. And ProcessWire's big picture is really, really simple. Other systems are far more complex… I think an issue is that people aren't used to understanding the big picture because they assume a level of complexity that isn't there with ProcessWire. They want to know how to do this or that little thing, without considering that they really can know how to do everything. The closest path to knowing how to best develop in ProcessWire is to read the docs. The pre-requisites are knowing front-end development (HTML & CSS), and optionally a little PHP. Though even people that don't know any PHP can do more than they could with a template engine. But for people that do know a little PHP, anything is possible. 

If I recall, Diogo mentioned that he printed out all the pages in the /api/ section of the site, took them to a park, and read them in an hour or so. Despite not starting out as a coder, he came back here knowing how to do anything. He can literally answer any question because he knows the big picture. 

Let's face it, the more you know about driving the faster you can drive your Porsche. If you are not skilled enough, you might get your car to 120 mpH, and that's your limit.

This is a good way to put it.

My opinion is that even someone with no understanding of PHP will still be able to create more on their own with ProcessWire than they could in another system. But for those that really want to "drive fast" and see how far they can push it, they'll have a much stronger engine at their disposal than they might in another system. For those people, php.net becomes a valuable documentation resource too. 

[kongondo]

Many assume the system to be much more complex than it actually is simply because they are giving more weight to tutorials and copy/paste snippets of code from the forum rather than the bigger picture that is emphasized by the docs. Though I know everyone learns differently. For me personally, I don't learn well from tutorials or snippets… even I get lost in most of the ProcessWire tutorials I've tried to follow. I need to know the big picture. And ProcessWire's big picture is really, really simple. Other systems are far more complex… I think an issue is that people aren't used to understanding the big picture because they assume a level of complexity that isn't there with ProcessWire. They want to know how to do this or that little thing, without considering that they really can know how to do everything.

Big picture: Reminds me of the "Cathedral Story"

Man walking down the street encounters a group of construction workers on a job site.  He asks one, “What are you doing?” and the worker says, “I’m laying brick.”  Moving along, the man asks another worker the same question, to which that worker answers, “I’m putting up a wall.”  Further along, the man meets a third worker, who responds to the question by saying, “I’m building a cathedral.”  

[pwired]

If I recall, Diogo mentioned that he printed out all the pages in the /api/ section of the site, took them to a park, and read them in an hour or so. Despite not starting out as a coder, he came back here knowing how to do anything. He can literally answer any question because he knows the big picture.

That's interesting. Recalling Diogo's comments and posts I sure get the impression he must be a full blown pro coder. Same impression I get of code snippets and websites that people throw at each other in this forum. No hobby websites but pro stuff.

I think an issue is that people aren't used to understanding the big picture because they assume a level of complexity that isn't there with ProcessWire.

It usually takes a long time for me before I see the big picture.of anything. But I consider my self really lucky to see enough of processwire to recognize the big difference in it's big and open potential compared to the other well know cms'es. I know I have been spoiled by easy modx evo, stop wanking and start going the pw learning curve.

One more thing though, but where do you find the following 3 solutions below in the docs ?

(they were given to me in the forum thanks to Diogo, Teppo and Soma)

How to check if the name of the current page is within this range, then do stuff

Diogo solution

if ($pages->find("name=slideshow18|slideshow18|slideshow38|slideshow88")->has($page))

Teppo solution

if ($page->is("name=slideshow18|slideshow28|slideshow38")) {

Soma solution  if it doesn't matter what number

if($page->is("name^=slideshow")){

     // page name starts with slideshow

[apeisa]

pwired: if docs would have all those examples, one by one - it would be just the same that you bought a box of legos and got 3 000 000 pages long manual that would show all the possible combinations that could be done.

When you learn the basics: $page, $pages, Page/Wire Arrays, selectors etc and learn how to use cheatsheet (and soon source code), you really can find combinations like that.

But, to answer your question:

DIOGO:

$pages is explained here: http://processwire.com/api/variables/pages/

->find() (and selectors in more common, ie. what to put inside find) is explained here: http://processwire.com/api/selectors/ (also first item here: http://processwire.com/api/variables/pages/)

->has() is explained here: http://processwire.com/api/arrays/page/

TEPPO:

$page is explained here: http://processwire.com/api/variables/page/

->is() is explained here: http://processwire.com/api/variables/page/ (and again, concept of selectors)

SOMA:

Operator (^=) that Soma uses in his selector is explained here http://processwire.com/api/selectors/

[Soma]

Give three programmers individually the task for a specific application and you'll get three complete different solutions. Ask them to look through each others code and all will correct each others.

[pwired]

Many assume the system to be much more complex than it actually is simply because they are giving more weight to tutorials and copy/paste snippets of code from the forum rather than the bigger picture that is emphasized by the docs.

Yes, and thanks for those separated links apeisa, I understand that I still have overlooked a lot in the api docs

and have to go back there. Too enthusiastic beginners problem I guess also.

[diogo]

And now, for something completely different

http://line25.com/inspiration/line25-sites-of-the-week-for-june-28th-2013

[Pete]

Oh now that's nice diogo

[Pete]

There seems to be a flood of tweets from the previous and there's a new "review" http://wpdaily.co/processwire/

Erm... Yeah... "review". I see what you mean. Not intending to offend the author, but why start off talking about something by essentially stating you don't have time to look into it, presumably then look into it only as far as the video and a list of sites and then draw the conclusion that it's for more complex sites?

It saves me hours over any other system even on the simplest of sites, and indeed brings me a level of enjoyment and a sense of fun whenever I use it because it has few-to-no limitations.

But again, the exposure is welcome.

[diogo]

Another one for our German translators http://wowa-webdesign.de/allgemein/gastartikel-processwire/ 

[totoff]

a very positive review from a guy who knows what he is talking about.

pro pw:

• high performance even with large scale sites
• active and friendly community 
• future safe
• good for commercial websites with the need to manage and display a lot of data (example scyscraper profile)
• highly flexible and powerful core, no plugins required

contra pw:

• no asset/media management

[diogo]

What a sad writing... http://cms.about.com/b/2013/10/20/too-many-cmss.htm

Here I am, blogging at cms.about.com, and I haven't even heard of these projects? What kind of an expert am I?

He has a good point here though

[Pete]

I would have thought that most people who occasionally checked the alternatives would have heard of MODx by now at least?

Anyway, my assessment of that article is that it's possibly the laziest piece of writing on CMS' I've ever read. What was the point of it aside from to tell people not to bother looking at other systems? If the author had spent a little time with the systems on the list it's entirely possible the article would have been very different, but he resigned himself to just not bothering because  they're not big enough instead of seeing if any were better for what he wanted.

I knew it was doomed from the very moment he wrote "...and active security updates." - which means he's one of many thousands of proud bloggers and content creators who think that the alarming regularity of security patches in Wordpress are somehow a comfort. They're not. They're a sign that something is wrong.

It's entirely possible that the very concept that you don't have to update the system on PW sites unless new features are needed is entirely alien to people like the author of that article. I take great comfort in the fact that ryan actively practices this (though I update all of mine just because old habits die hard, plus it's the easiest upgrade process I've ever come across).

I'm slightly scathing towards this guy in this post, but it's wholly deserved I feel as instead of being an "expert" he has instead been blinkered and misleading through sheer laziness. It's pretty inexcusable on a high-traffic website to be honest. The whole thing seems to be tailored towards advertising the two he uses (one of which appears in ads on the page) however I'll concede that he did at least link to the CMS Critic awards even if he couldn't bring himself to linking to the winners' project pages.

[MatthewSchenker]

Greetings,

Thanks diogo for bringing this to our attention. The people at about.com should be embarrassed to have something like this tarnishing their domain. Even if the subject was restaurants and not CMSs, the thinking that is revealed here is atrocious.

The author's logic goes like this: I know there are many choices out there, and I haven't tried them all, but I already decided that they are not as good as this one.

Generally, I really dislike using the number of plugins as an argument in support of a CMS. Joomla constantly boasts about having 7500+ plugins, and it is meaningless.

Thanks,

Matthew

[Pete]

Just in case anyone outside ProcessWire arrives here after the last few posts, I'm not just getting riled about this on behalf of ProcessWire - there are many good systems on that list of winners, all trying to do something innovative and new. I'm equally maddened about it on behalf of MODx as I am ProcessWire for example because I've actually spent time with both in an effort to get away from the restrictions of a default WordPress installation.

Both MODx and PW allow you to effortlessly create page templates without the need for plugins.

And I wholly agree with Matthew - the number of plugins/modules it touted too often and has the same meaning of teenagers saying "my manhood's bigger than yours".

I struggled to keep that polite, but found the right words I think.

[Adam Kiss]

Something about knowing only a hammer and nails comes to mind.

[pwired]

did somebody mention modx ?

http://forums.modx.com/thread/87015/evo-doesn-t-work-with-php-5-5-x#dis-post-480279

[Pete]

Well Evo is the "older" version anyway (Revo technically replaces is, but many users preferred Evo), but it's also not like PHP 5.5 is going to be mainstream for a while. Not making excuses, but that won't be a huge problem for many people just now pwired.

[ryan]

I agree that article is pretty uninformed and it's that kind of rationale that is holding back the web on a large scale. It's why most of the web is powered by decade(s) old technology and thinking. I'm not sure why about.com would write such an article without any experience with the systems. I am guessing the author's experience is limited to WordPress, but he bundled Drupal into there because he heard it's big, and the other side of the coin to WordPress (for balance). I actually think the article would have been more valid if Drupal had been left out and it was clear that the audience was intended to be those with no web experience. It seems like some of the intended audience becomes more clear in the author's follow-up comments. I have actually developed sites in both WordPress and Drupal - I can think of a lot of folks I would recommend WordPress to (it's hard to beat for a simple blog), but really can't think of anyone I'd recommend Drupal to in this day and age. I like and respect a lot about Drupal actually, but it's for nostalgic reasons not practical ones. It's like tinkering around with my old mechanical calculator form the 1960s. It can still get the job done, but it's hard to rationalize using it given what else is available. The one thing I did like about this article was the follow-up comments by Diogo and Joss, that's where the real quality content is here. And it made my day to see Joss pop up in there, assuming it's the same one from here.