What PHP represents

[BearItAll]

Re: What PHP represents

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:39:50 -0700, darwinist wrote:
[color=blue]
> That said, most descriptions of what is good about php, fail to do it
> justice. Although they are generally enthusiastic and sometimes fanatical,
> no amount of religious zeal about its coolness or easiness can make up for
> missing the main point. Out of the theoretical realm of language design
> and into the economic reality, php is the most powerful (programming)
> language so far created.[/color]

I may not be popular saying this, but I don't think php is the best tool
for the job that it is used for.

I would agree that it is easy and fits in well with the html/xslt side of
things. It also seems to be the best available at the moment, which is
likely to be why it's popular.

But I would say that ruby-rails is much closer to how things should be,
even if your not keen on the language itself, the principle is much
closer to being right. The html page or 'view' of an application should be
an object of that application, not a filter page that needs to pass
through a 'find & replace' function. How many filters (or transcribers?)
can be active per html page now? php, java script, css, w3c ....

Ruby-rails nearly goes that way of taking the view away from the main
code, but I feel as if it got nervous of taking it to the final
conclusion, plus of cause they are at the mercy of html itself.

When we have a language for web that truly separates data - application -
view, so separate in fact that the view could even live on the client PC
if we wanted it to, then we can rave about it. At the moment we're still
on the journey.

[ECRIA Public Mail Buffer]

Re: What PHP represents

> How many of them are complaints about PHP as a language? One in a hundred?[color=blue]
> Five hundred?[/color]

Even fewer than that, and usually a result of faulty code, not faulty PHP...

ECRIA

http://www.ecria.com

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Re: What PHP represents

Larry Qualig wrote:[color=blue]
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com > wrote in message
> news:sasu1a0fbr av.dlg@funkenbu sch.com...
>[color=green]
>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:46:25 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>>It's much like the Star Wars universe though.
>>Not a single hand rail in sight, anywhere.[/color]
>
>
>
> I understand exactly what you mean. It's obvious that in the future OSHA
> will cease to exist.[/color]

That, probably, would be a bad thing. On the other hand, product
labelling really needs to be changed. Is it really necessary to point
out that a freshly-poured cup of coffee is hot, or that the drain
un-blocking liquid, intended to dissolve organic materials, is not meant
to be consumed? We need to get Darwin back in the driver's seat. :)

[Larry Qualig]

Re: What PHP represents


"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gma il.com> wrote in message
news:tCgue.7920 2$9A2.45597@edt nps89...[color=blue]
> Larry Qualig wrote:[color=green]
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com > wrote in message
>> news:sasu1a0fbr av.dlg@funkenbu sch.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:46:25 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>>
>>>It's much like the Star Wars universe though.
>>>Not a single hand rail in sight, anywhere.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I understand exactly what you mean. It's obvious that in the future OSHA
>> will cease to exist.[/color]
>
> That, probably, would be a bad thing. On the other hand, product
> labelling really needs to be changed. Is it really necessary to point out
> that a freshly-poured cup of coffee is hot, or that the drain un-blocking
> liquid, intended to dissolve organic materials, is not meant to be
> consumed?[/color]


I'm inclined to say that the "product labeling" issue is more of an issue
with our litigious society. I think that the only reason these crazy labels
exist is to protect the product makers from frivolous law-suits. Some idiot
drinks drain-cleaning fluid and the lawyers go after the manufacturer for
not warning them not to drink it. A friend at work used to have a daily
calendar with a new crazy lawsuit each day. It's insane what people sue over
and win.

The lawyers are able to somehow twist and distort the picture to the point
where these idiots now become the poor innocent victim. To make matters
worse, the brainiacs on the jury award these huge settlements to them.

[color=blue]
> We need to get Darwin back in the driver's seat. :)[/color]

Definitely. A thousand years ago if someone was *that* stupid they would end
up dead and only the smart would survive. Today the idiots are awarded
millions of dollars so they can live the life of luxury and weaken the human
gene-pool with their offspring. (Note.. they usually life this "life of
luxury" for 2-3 years before they squander all their money.)

[darwinist]

Re: What PHP represents

BearItAll wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:39:50 -0700, darwinist wrote:
>[color=green]
> > That said, most descriptions of what is good about php, fail to do it
> > justice. Although they are generally enthusiastic and sometimes fanatical,
> > no amount of religious zeal about its coolness or easiness can make up for
> > missing the main point. Out of the theoretical realm of language design
> > and into the economic reality, php is the most powerful (programming)
> > language so far created.[/color]
>
> I may not be popular saying this, but I don't think php is the best tool
> for the job that it is used for.[/color]

Not being popular is what saying things on the internet is all about :)
[color=blue]
> I would agree that it is easy and fits in well with the html/xslt side of
> things. It also seems to be the best available at the moment, which is
> likely to be why it's popular.[/color]

Right there's best in theory and best in practice. They are rarely the
same in virtue of the fact that humans make such limited theories, and
the universe is not impressed.
[color=blue]
> But I would say that ruby-rails is much closer to how things should be,
> even if your not keen on the language itself, the principle is much
> closer to being right. The html page or 'view' of an application should be
> an object of that application, not a filter page that needs to pass
> through a 'find & replace' function. How many filters (or transcribers?)
> can be active per html page now? php, java script, css, w3c ....[/color]

Lots of things are more how it "should" be, but the question I'm
interested in is how quickly can one produce something that contributes
economically to an organisation (as an information-tracking tool that
is, rather than as a sellable commodity).
[color=blue]
> Ruby-rails nearly goes that way of taking the view away from the main
> code, but I feel as if it got nervous of taking it to the final
> conclusion, plus of cause they are at the mercy of html itself.
>
> When we have a language for web that truly separates data - application -
> view, so separate in fact that the view could even live on the client PC
> if we wanted it to, then we can rave about it. At the moment we're still
> on the journey.[/color]

I've been hearing more about ruby (and rails) lately, the only bad
thing it's got going against it at the moment is that I've never used
it. What little code I've read however makes it look very neat and
efficient (code-wise). In any case it would stupid for me to suggest
that PHP will never be superceded, and who knows maybe it will be ruby
that does it. Like most languages that are better than php though, it
has to be better *on the web* or else a lot of people will think "why
bother, it's so much easier in php, and anyway it's all the same once
it reaches the browser"

I don't think PHP is necessarily the best for any and every website or
web-application, but I think it's probably the best (all things
considered) for getting something genuinely and concretely useful (e.g.
a customer database, a timesheet, project or stock database) and
getting it quickly. You can (too) easily do it badly, but you can do
anything badly (and ironically it's often much slower if you do).

[malloc]

Re: What PHP represents

on June 22 09:08 am Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[color=blue]
> Actually, it makes it a pretty poor choice for commercial
> development, or at least large sclae commercial development. They
> tend to break a lot of things from version to version. This makes it
> much harder to make your app run on all versions, or even keep up
> with the latest version.[/color]

Isn't Ericsson a real commercial company then?

`This project was financed by Ericsson and was developed by the
Broadband Systems Group (GSBL) of the Electronic and Telecommunicati ons
Department of the Universidade de Aveiro.'

`This application was completely developed using the script language
named PHP to interface the Web server with the database server.'

http://www.e-na.net/the_author.html?current_locale=en#3.9

Marc Andreessen
Opsware
Netscape

Andi Gutmans
Zend Technologies

Rod A. Smith
IBM

JP Rangaswami
Investment Bank Dresdner
Kleinwort Wasserstein

Zeev Suraski
Zend Technologies

http://zend.kbconferences.com/

[BearItAll]

Re: What PHP represents

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:30:21 -0700, darwinist wrote:
[color=blue]
> BearItAll wrote:[color=green]
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:39:50 -0700, darwinist wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > That said, most descriptions of what is good about php, fail to do it
>> > justice. Although they are generally enthusiastic and sometimes
>> > fanatical, no amount of religious zeal about its coolness or easiness
>> > can make up for missing the main point. Out of the theoretical realm
>> > of language design and into the economic reality, php is the most
>> > powerful (programming) language so far created.[/color]
>>
>> I may not be popular saying this, but I don't think php is the best tool
>> for the job that it is used for.[/color]
>
> Not being popular is what saying things on the internet is all about :)
>[color=green]
>> I would agree that it is easy and fits in well with the html/xslt side
>> of things. It also seems to be the best available at the moment, which
>> is likely to be why it's popular.[/color]
>
> Right there's best in theory and best in practice. They are rarely the
> same in virtue of the fact that humans make such limited theories, and the
> universe is not impressed.
>[color=green]
>> But I would say that ruby-rails is much closer to how things should be,
>> even if your not keen on the language itself, the principle is much
>> closer to being right. The html page or 'view' of an application should
>> be an object of that application, not a filter page that needs to pass
>> through a 'find & replace' function. How many filters (or transcribers?)
>> can be active per html page now? php, java script, css, w3c ....[/color]
>
> Lots of things are more how it "should" be, but the question I'm
> interested in is how quickly can one produce something that contributes
> economically to an organisation (as an information-tracking tool that is,
> rather than as a sellable commodity).
>[color=green]
>> Ruby-rails nearly goes that way of taking the view away from the main
>> code, but I feel as if it got nervous of taking it to the final
>> conclusion, plus of cause they are at the mercy of html itself.
>>
>> When we have a language for web that truly separates data - application
>> - view, so separate in fact that the view could even live on the client
>> PC if we wanted it to, then we can rave about it. At the moment we're
>> still on the journey.[/color]
>
> I've been hearing more about ruby (and rails) lately, the only bad thing
> it's got going against it at the moment is that I've never used it. What
> little code I've read however makes it look very neat and efficient
> (code-wise). In any case it would stupid for me to suggest that PHP will
> never be superceded, and who knows maybe it will be ruby that does it.
> Like most languages that are better than php though, it has to be better
> *on the web* or else a lot of people will think "why bother, it's so much
> easier in php, and anyway it's all the same once it reaches the browser"
>
> I don't think PHP is necessarily the best for any and every website or
> web-application, but I think it's probably the best (all things
> considered) for getting something genuinely and concretely useful (e.g. a
> customer database, a timesheet, project or stock database) and getting it
> quickly. You can (too) easily do it badly, but you can do anything badly
> (and ironically it's often much slower if you do).[/color]


I agree with you in part, but I think your using the learning curve for
(as an example) ruby-rails as part of the argument against it. When I
think that the application types that you mention would be much more
practical, from a coding and maintenance point of view, by using
ruby-rails.

I would say that anyone starting from a platform of having reasonable
programming skills, irrespective of the language could start producing
working useful code within a week for ruby and two weeks for ruby-rails.
Experience in any language counts for a lot, I still slip back into C when
I really need something quickly, simply because i programmed C for so long
that that is the programming language that I think in.

So, lets say that we have gone through the learning curve and come out at
the other end. Now we can compare php and ruby-rails.

The first thing that stands out is really very simple, most programmers
would of done something in these lines anyway, but ruby-rails offers a
formal way to do it. It creates all of the separation directories, but it
does so in such a way that even to untrained programmers the layout
suggests the best places for various parts of you projects functionality.
Once you have tried a few sample sites, then you realise just how
logically correct it is. Ok, have to admit that some areas of the
separation are a bit shady, but thats true of all projects.

So straight away we have an environment that is easier for maintenance and
code updates, simply because you can go straight to the offending code
area whether the project was written by you or not.

You are talking mainly of database/contact/records work. Well, you point
ruby-rails at your database, then the data itself becomes an object of
your application. It is ruby's job to handle access.

The current down side is that I haven't actually come across an ISP that
offers ruby-rails as one of it's available programming environments. I
have only used it on my own servers.

In defence of php though. Ruby has some speed problems, php writers
would spot that one even in fairly simple code. But maybe the engine will
improve eventually.

[darwinist]

Re: What PHP represents

BearItAll wrote:
[...][color=blue]
> You are talking mainly of database/contact/records work. Well, you point
> ruby-rails at your database, then the data itself becomes an object of
> your application. It is ruby's job to handle access.[/color]

How is it better to call methods than call functions if you want to
access a database? Interface stuff (eg javascript) is better with
objects because interfaces are decentralised and event-driven. In this
environment, ojects make it easier to keep track of what's happening,
but server-side scripting is essentially linear. There may be a design
argument for using objects, but for reusing someone else's code to save
some records, load some records, and generate an html page; a function
call works the same way as a method call.
[color=blue]
> The current down side is that I haven't actually come across an ISP that
> offers ruby-rails as one of it's available programming environments. I
> have only used it on my own servers.
>
> In defence of php though. Ruby has some speed problems, php writers
> would spot that one even in fairly simple code. But maybe the engine will
> improve eventually.[/color]

One would expect so, since it's open source and not without its
followers. I look forward to the time when the open source geeks are
praising ruby more highly than any other language in at least one
field. I'll experiment when I'm unemployed again.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: What PHP represents

On 2005-06-23, Larry Qualig <Lqualig_do_rem ove@uku.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gma il.com> wrote in message
> news:tCgue.7920 2$9A2.45597@edt nps89...[color=green]
>> Larry Qualig wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com > wrote in message
>>> news:sasu1a0fbr av.dlg@funkenbu sch.com...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:46:25 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's much like the Star Wars universe though.
>>>>Not a single hand rail in sight, anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand exactly what you mean. It's obvious that in the future OSHA
>>> will cease to exist.[/color]
>>
>> That, probably, would be a bad thing. On the other hand, product
>> labelling really needs to be changed. Is it really necessary to point out
>> that a freshly-poured cup of coffee is hot, or that the drain un-blocking
>> liquid, intended to dissolve organic materials, is not meant to be
>> consumed?[/color]
>
>
> I'm inclined to say that the "product labeling" issue is more of an issue
> with our litigious society. I think that the only reason these crazy labels
> exist is to protect the product makers from frivolous law-suits. Some idiot
> drinks drain-cleaning fluid and the lawyers go after the manufacturer for
> not warning them not to drink it. A friend at work used to have a daily
> calendar with a new crazy lawsuit each day. It's insane what people sue over
> and win.
>
> The lawyers are able to somehow twist and distort the picture to the point
> where these idiots now become the poor innocent victim. To make matters
> worse, the brainiacs on the jury award these huge settlements to them.[/color]

...yet this all seems to magically get by the jury somehow.

[deletia]

It's easy to lay the blame at the feet of amoral lawyers (and there
are certainly many) but only if you ignore how American courts actually work.

For any abusive trial decision you would like to whine about, there
were 9 average joes that were willing to go along with the insanity.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \