Why php?

[M. Johansson]

Way to go Mbb

I second that! The stereotype would have been complete with an "M$" or two.

[Dr Livingston]

Yer, PHP5 most definitely needs a class library I think - summer next year as I see it happening ? - though we are basically all f***ed if they use PEAR as I see it

God damn help us all if this ever happens....

In fact I'd go as far as stating that we should begin a campaign to remove PEAR altogether from PHP in any way, shape or form.

It is way too bloated, has poor linear non-OOP designed implementations and in fact does PHP no real favours - apart from being a use to lazy developers ?

IMO of course

[redemption]

Yer, PHP5 most definitely needs a class library I think - summer next year as I see it happening ? - though we are basically all f***ed if they use PEAR as I see it

I don't keep track of PHP5 development, so tell me: will there be a standard API like for Java, where there are standard classes with which you can do things that are currently done using PHP functions?

[CompiledMonkey]

But you started the thread admitting you knew nothing about PHP, so how could you have possibly shared the same views in your young and foolish days?

I didn't say I said that about PHP, I said it about Java. I picked it because it's free, it's not MS, blah blah blah...

I've never seen the words 'cost' and 'not matter' in the same sentence before when referring to a software project. You must be working for one of the only companies that hasn't been effected by the downturn.

No, we just get clients that understand how important a quality system is for their business.

[CompiledMonkey]

who said that ? PHP is a language , J2EE a framework as is .NET

It's been said that PHP will overtake Java in this thread, many times.

people already use it as such

Examples?

& considering how long 2003 has been out then thats hardly a surprise is it. I have .NET Enterprise Server RC2 (which is I assume a beta of 2003?) ...gott'a say that configuring IIS confuses me more than does configuring apache/*nix but I suppose its a question of what you are used to.

I found it simple. You may have to read an article, but it's quite simple.

sorry , I did not realise I was in the presence of such greatness ..(Jeremy & Harry aside [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]) , so I best shut-up.

Hey, I don't claim to be great. I'm still a newb. I just have experience that many people my age do not. I'm just stating an observation of my previous experience.

[HarryF]

I wouldn't be suprised if the "lack of a decent class library" problem isn't addressed at this point as well. With the more advanced OO structures it will be far more attractive to anyone who wishes to develop such a thing. But remember that a decent class library takes a lot of research and planning, how many hours of planning must have gone into the C# and Java libraries?

Think the medium for this to happen is PEAR (believe it or not - PEAR is really growing on me). There's an interesting PEAR RFC here about constructing PEAR foundation classes. Agree that putting together a complete library is something that is best handled by a very focused team but it's also worth remembering that PHP's native functionality already provides a solid basis for such a library - much of the design of classes is simply a case of wrapping the functionality that already exists.

With the overload extension (which should be a core part of PHP5) we can even do things like;

class String {
    var $string;
    function String ($string) {
        $this->string=$string;
    }
    function __call($method,$params,$return) {
        switch ( $method ) {
            case 'strstr':
                $return=$method($this->string,$params[0]);
                break;
            case 'str_replace:
                $return=$method($this->string,$params[0],$params[1]);
                break;
            default;
                // Throw method not found exception
                break;
        }
        return true;
    }
}
overload('String');

$string=new String('Hello World');

// Displays 'World'
echo ( $string->strstr('Hello ') );

// Displays 'Goodbye World'
echo ( $string->str_replace('Hello','Goodbye') ); 

i.e. wrap existing PHP functions quickly and easily in a class. That could fix some of the inconsistencies as well, mentioned earlier.

The main thing IMO is that PEAR defines a set of interfaces for things like database access and XML parsing which people should implement.

BTW - if you haven't already, check out the PEAR web installer - it's truly impressive. Good tutorial about setting it up here: http://www.phpkitchen.com/article.ph...21201062516970

[Dr Livingston]

Not picking an argument here HarryF - for the most part I trust your point of view etc - but I do not think that implementing an already existing API (PEAR in this regard) to PHP5 as it's class library in any way.

You your self have said in the past that PEAR is bloated; and it is. But the idea of using existing functions (ie String Replace) could be something to look at.

But we do not need PEAR thank you

[Jeremy W.]

I've never seen the words 'cost' and 'not matter' in the same sentence before when referring to a software project. You must be working for one of the only companies that hasn't been effected by the downturn.


Actually, NWC, Business 2.0, etc have charted that IT spending hasn't actually gone down during this "downturn", and will actually rise by between 2-7% this year.

As I was saying in another thread, getting funding for projects is easy, so long as you approach it with proper business sense: cost cutting, strategic decision making and long-term benefits.

I'll be spending 500K more at work than has ever been spent on IT. All of that money is immediate savings. Not 1-year ROI, not 5-year commitments. Immediate savings.

I love how your wisdom extends to who people are, how much they know and what companies they work for.

[Jeremy W.]

*L* @ web installers being truly impressive... This was one of the "marketing gimmicks" you used to hold against .NET, as you can do web installs of any application you develop automatically.

J

[Dr Livingston]

Okay - own up; who I wonder has just knocked 2 points off my reputations ?

Buggers.... Yes, I did have a look over at www.go-mono.com and it's all interesting and all that.

But it isn't really, truely grounded from open source is it now ? PHP is a fine scripting language and it really is a fine example of open source and what open source can really be and do.

Wonderful stuff this open source yes ?

Before you could ever use Mono you'd need a compiler and the CLR runtimes if I had read correctly, then on top of all that you'd need those class libraries.

And then finally you'd have to embed the runtime within your own applications.... not unlike PHP for example (open source btw) where you just install along with Apache (for example) and your laughing.

Nope, sorry - I stand by that statement I made earlier.

[PHP John]

There are really only two reasons I use PHP (at this time):

1. My only other extensive programming experience is BASIC
2. It was introduced in my classes along with ASP, and I dislike ASP purely for political reasons

Java is growing on me as I learn more about it.

Like any mechanic, his toolbox is full of useful items, the use of which is purely dependant upon the job he has to perform.

I'm still in the process of filling up my toolbox.

[HarryF]

Not picking an argument here HarryF - for the most part I trust your point of view etc - but I do not think that implementing an already existing API (PEAR in this regard) to PHP5 as it's class library in any way.

You your self have said in the past that PEAR is bloated; and it is. But the idea of using existing functions (ie String Replace) could be something to look at.

But we do not need PEAR thank you

Think there's a few things here. First, yes I've said things against PEAR in the past but have been giving it alot more time recently and although it's true that it suffers from bloat, there's still alot to be said for it.

First as to the bloat, there are two types of "bloat" it seems. First there are "god classes" which implement tons of stuff in a single class and could do with being broken up.

The other type of bloat though is (I think) a good thing; coarsely grained packages which come with alot of functionality and alternative ways to use them. A prime example is PEAR::Cache which provides a very powerful caching mechanism (even capable of caching in shared memory rather than to the disk). Depending on your requirements you'll probably never use alot of it but that doesn't mean PEAR::Cache shouldn't provide it. The design is excellent IMO.

Otherwise what I'm suggesting is PEAR, with help from PHP5's new features can (and will) reform itself.

The medium of doing this is the interface classes IMO - if you look at Java's JAXP for example, they're provided an interface for XML parsers to implment that means programmers like you can I can use JAXP rather than writing code which depends on a specific XML parser (which may have bugs) - JAXP is something like a database abstraction layer.

By setting this standard, Sun now leave it to developers of XML parsers (like Apache's Xerces) to implement the interface. This model would work extremely well with PEAR IMO and more to the point, methinks the PHP group in general are gearing up to do this - take a look at this for example: http://ny1.php.net/talks/show.php/php5intro/32

[Jeremy W.]

Buggers.... Yes, I did have a look over at www.go-mono.com and it's all interesting and all that.

But it isn't really, truely grounded from open source is it now ? PHP is a fine scripting language and it really is a fine example of open source and what open source can really be and do.

...

Before you could ever use Mono you'd need a compiler and the CLR runtimes if I had read correctly, then on top of all that you'd need those class libraries.

And then finally you'd have to embed the runtime within your own applications.... not unlike PHP for example (open source btw) where you just install along with Apache (for example) and your laughing.

First off, why isn't it true open source? Becuase it's based off an MS technology? You've lost me with this "true open source" thing, is this an elite kind of dealie where it's only open source if based off Linux? I'm not being snide, just wondering.

And why can't Mono be a fine example of what Open Source can do? An entire implementation of the .NET framework sounds like a big job to me (something many people have said is impossible, now they are simply knocking it just because).

As far as what you'd need, I don't think you'd need a separate compiler, CLR or anything from Mono, in fact from the Mono homepage:

Mono includes: a compiler for the C# language, a runtime for the Common Language Infrastructure (also referred as the CLR) and a set of class libraries. The runtime can be embedded into your application.

Not entirely sure what your review of Mono is meant to be, to be honest, but it's a fully working implementation of the ASP.net and ADO.net areas, basically allowing you to create complete ASP.NET applications on Linux.

J

[Dr Livingston]

First

The medium of doing this is the interface classes IMO - if you look at Java's JAXP for example, they're provided an interface for XML parsers to implment that means programmers like you can I can use JAXP rather than writing code which depends on a specific XML parser (which may have bugs) - JAXP is something like a database abstraction layer.

By setting this standard, Sun now leave it to developers of XML parsers (like Apache's Xerces) to implement the interface. This model would work extremely well with PEAR IMO and more to the point, methinks the PHP group in general are gearing up to do this

I do agree with you about what I've quoted though PEAR ? Why not vicent's Eclipses instead - which IMO is far better anyway...

Second

And why can't Mono be a fine example of what Open Source can do?

Because it isn't orginating from the open source environment is it ? It is a Microsoft technology and it begins from there; no where else.

PHP isn't open source due to linux - PHP IS open source with or without the OS being linux.

Is Windows OS open source ? Didn't think so...

[Phil.Roberts]

Why not vicent's Eclipses instead - which IMO is far better anyway...

Eclipse doesnt have a SOAP class, a HTTP class, a cache class, an archive class, a html class, any networking classes...... need I go on?

Eclipse is very good but it only has a very small number of general purpose tools.

Because it isn't orginating from the open source environment is it ? It is a Microsoft technology and it begins from there; no where else

What does that have to do with anything? You're basically implying that any ideas microsoft come up with are inherently evil or flawed. Mono is as open-source as any other OS project out there.

[Dr Livingston]

Eclipse - Fair enough, though this approach in vincents design IMO would be better than the design approch of PEAR, no ?

Anyway, that's all academic really since we cannot predict the future.

As to Microsoft and Mono I am not all that anti- Microsoft as to the average person.

Mono it's self may be open source, but does it not use components/frameworks/whatever you may call it from Microsoft ?

That's the point I'm trying to get across really, isn't it ?

[M. Johansson]

Mono it's self may be open source, but does it not use components/frameworks/whatever you may call it from Microsoft ?

Nope.

[neil100]

First off, why isn't it true open source? Becuase it's based off an MS technology? You've lost me with this "true open source" thing, is this an elite kind of dealie where it's only open source if based off Linux? I'm not being snide, just wondering.

And why can't Mono be a fine example of what Open Source can do? An entire implementation of the .NET framework sounds like a big job to me (something many people have said is impossible, now they are simply knocking it just because).

As far as what you'd need, I don't think you'd need a separate compiler, CLR or anything from Mono, in fact from the Mono homepage:

The problem with mono and in fact .net on anything other than a windows platform is the rather extensive patent Microsoft took out on everything .NET three or four months ago, a patent which could stop the mono project dead or any other open source project or software developer without permission from Microsoft.

[datune]

Wow!

I really don't believe what i have read on the past 4 pages.

I really can't believe ANY of you seriously tries to compare PHP with JAVA!!!!


And really, i don't think it's worth the time to try to prove which language is better than the other.

To be honest, i think most of this thread is really childish.

Use the tool that suits the project at hand. End of story.

Monkey:

if you have that much experience with J2EE than stick with it. If you have the time, have a look at PHP, give it a try, and make up your own oppinion instead of reyling on what others say (though i am not too sure about your orginal intention; ie. if you were really interested in why php is popular etc...).

I am pretty sure(99%) that there will never be a single ruling language.
Not with all the diversity etc... not to mention that human beings are different, and as such have different likings (one MAJOR example being for example the syntax of VB, i personally HATE it, and i know a lot of others do too, but then there are all those who love it [go figure]..).

I have said this in another thread once (long time ago, can't remember which one), it is very unproffesional to claim that one technology is superiour to another. (from a developer's point of view, not a marketing one :P )

I think the key is to specialize in one or two languages which you like, and that's it. (and i don't really mean PHP if saying specializing, cause really, any C++ or Java Developer wil pick up PHP in a breeze).

Just my 2 cents

[CompiledMonkey]

datune, my main purpose was to see why others got into php like they have. I was hoping to find compelling information so I would have to take an honest peek myself. I haven't found it, so I'll stick with J2EE and keep on going with .NET.

[seanf]

I came from Perl. I think that's enough said about that

Sean

[freddydoesphp]

Why PHP,

Of course because its the simplest, cheapest way to get dynamic content into a website. Thats it!

You can argue semantics all day long, what it boils down to is ease of use.

Don't let your egos in the way, we all know that most of us in this thread are professionals, so no need to toot our own horns. But basically thats the reason people use it. Its easy and cheap. It doesn't solve all the problems, but for dynamic content, its the ticket. Of course, IMO.

[datune]

datune, my main purpose was to see why others got into php like they have. I was hoping to find compelling information so I would have to take an honest peek myself. I haven't found it, so I'll stick with J2EE and keep on going with .NET.

You know, im sorry if this may sound rude, but PHP itself is prolly the best compelling information you will ever get.

I would never rely on information from people who'm i not know, or better yet, if they are qualified to judge such an important matter. (no offense here folks, and i'm not saying that there might be people around who are), but really...take a look at PHP itself if you want to know

Also, im wondering why you are interested?
Are you not satisfied with the technologies you claim to know?
Are you bored?
Trying to improve your horizon (dought that, cause otherwise you would have taken a look at PHP first)?

Not that i care personnaly, but i'm having a hard time to believe you SERIOUSLY wanted to evaluate PHP's capabilities.

[kylemaxwell.com]

Someone's probably said this, but there are sooo many built-in functions. Yeah, you could get COM objects in ASP, but then you have to have a dedicated server or a VERY generous web host....

[Jeremy W.]

:glances oddly at kyle: ... huh? You do know that .NET contains 15K classes, right? A dedicated server? I think you're talking about old ASP, in which case you'd be best read something like this: http://www.codenotes.com/do/articles...?articleID=534.

Basically, the only thing that's the same is the name, the rest is completely different

As far as freddy's quick "boil it down", those are the exact reasons I chose .NET, to be honest

J