Transphporm VS fig-standards

What I can say, since you're investing time into template engines, do you think any improvements can be made to transphporm? It was the one I looked for on your list and didn't see. Also happens to be the one I integrated for default suphle installations. Some points were raised in this issue https://github.com/Level-2/Transphporm/issues/5. I don't agree with all but I'm 100% on board with the idea of keeping all templating and logic outside the html

Here's a slightly neater approach: https://github.com/Level-2/Transphporm I created using some of the ideas from that article.

Pointing out the flaws in template engines doesn't really excuse this mess, it calls for a better template engine (e.g. https://github.com/Level-2/Transphporm ) which doesn't mix logic and markup. All you've accomplished here is mixing the logic and the markup at the PHP end instead of the template end.

The namespaces and class names must follow this example.

I would familiarize yourself with the following PHP standards: https://www.php-fig.org

The PHP Standard Recommendation, or PSR for short, from the aforementioned PHP-FIG.

That's what happens if you use a PSR-4 autoloader and not utilise PSR-4 in your project structure 👀 So either use PSR-0 or properly use PSR-4.

PHP really "got it's act together" in my view when packagist and composer (which are PHP's equivalent of npm) became mainstream and with the release of the PSR community standards. We were admittedly a little behind the curve with regards to package managers but with standardised formats and not having to copy and paste zip file libraries anymore, PHP received a new lease of life.