Similar to the other frameworks, CodeIgniter was chosen due to its community and popularity. It has much of the same aspects of the other frameworks we evaluated, except .Net which obviously doesn't use PHP. CakePHP has a CakeBake function that we wish we had with CodeIgniter, …
CodeIgniter has a very small footprint. The source code is very small sized. Setting up a project is very easy. Follows MVC pattern. Consumes low memory and CPU. Well documented. Has a built-in forum for users to discuss and get the solution for issues. Periodically updates …
We chose CodeIgniter because although it has a steep learning curve, ultimately it suited our needs better in terms of how well it scales for larger applications.
In my experience, I tinkered with Zend and Cake initially before CodeIgniter. I recall getting stuck multiple occasions with Zend and Cake when I first started learning the MVC architecture. When I found CodeIgniter, the experience was different and it was much easier to learn. …
Laravel is the de facto upgrade path for any and all web developers coming from any version of CodeIgniter. However, Laravel brings a level of complexity that can be intimidating to new developers or wasteful to experienced developers with simple requirements.
If you need to create simple CRUD applications using a MVC framework, I could say CakePHP could achieve this. But with frameworks like Laravel on the market, I would have a hard time recommending CakePHP for anything.
The input class makes it easy to provide server-side validation and scrubbing of user input. Setting Error messages. It doesn't require constant command-line access, It's great because it has a strong community and excellent documentation, but the problem is that it tries to retain backward compatibility with PHP 4 and therefore lacks a lot of "standard" features modern frameworks have such as auto-loading.
CodeIgniter is an excellent tool when a simple database API is needed. Postgres, MySQL, and SQLite are all abstracted into a simple-to-use
CodeIgniter's simplicity is truly its best feature, because you are able to create controllers and methods based on the http://www.example//, and immediately being developing the application.
Flexibility is also another developer-friendly feature, because developers are able to design their application in any way - controllers, models, libraries, and helpers can be located anywhere or not used at all.
The biggest issue inherit in CakePHP, and why we switched to Laravel, is the base configuration of the program. Most people aree that CakePHP uses old (outdated, even dangerous) PHP habits. There is some truth in this: Cake has not been as quick to adapt to the newer PHP versions as they should. I was always surprised that with new major releases, from 2.4 to 2.5 for example, that the minimum version of PHP will never increase. For example, CakePHP only requires version 5.2.8 of PHP, but it would not have been difficult to update the minimum version at least 5.3 when adapting a new version.
Speed - our company had many issues scaling CakePHP to a medium size application software, even with using REDIS/memcache we would still run into many issues with the built-in ORM.
Faced some issue of session management, so that's why we used the Core Session library for that. It would be great if we could improve it a little bit.
Frameworks provide the option to setup all getters/setters, so having this option in it is a great idea.
CodeIgniter has a very small footprint. The source code is very small sized. Setting up a project is very easy. Follows MVC pattern. Consumes low memory and CPU. Well documented. Has a built-in forum for users to discuss and get the solution for issues. Periodically updates versions and patch fixes etc.