SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48
  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think PHP in version 5 needs to implement a modules system like PERL. Where users can create extensions in native PHP. Allowing you to create and reuse components, etc.
    Second that motion! OK you can just using includes but have a formal system for locating / loading classes would be great.

  2. #27
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    rather see them as tools which makes be an even better developer.
    I'd have to disagree Tools do not make for a better developer; study and learning makes for a better developer - tools merely reduce your workload and the time to develop IMO; This point has been proven time and time again folks. To be a developer you have to study, you have to learn; to be a better developer this takes even more learning and study and more importantly - it takes experience.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Livingston
    Tools do not make for a better developer
    But perhaps it does make for a better developer. Take two developers of equal skill and give one better tools, which creates the better end product?

    My point is, better tools don't hurt and there is a correlation between the tools and the quality of development. :-)
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  4. #29
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ummm.... Yer maybe though only to a certain point. For example, a specific tool might have 'x' functionality built in and the developer uses it much like a template; ie
    PHP Code:
    <DB_CONNECT
    Thus saving the developer the need to develope the script etc for the database connection and thus saving time right ? What happens when said developer moves on and the tool isn't available ? Yes, the developer has to script the connection from start; though due to using a tools functionality, the developer has no idea how to script a database connection, if you follow me ?[img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]

    Also I might add that the quality of scripting/code based on a tool isn't universal and in most cases, questionable in the least ? Compare the quality of DW markup against Frontpage for example...

  5. #30
    "Of" != "Have" bronze trophy Jeff Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    2,063
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is true, however even PHP is much like a tool, as there is a lot of stuff it does behind the scenes that I have no idea how it works, mainly because I'm only semi-beginner at C/C++.

    I still prefer to write my own code over using someone elses class, however I use a couple of the PEAR Library classes in my webmail application, mainly because it would take me more time to write an equal-quality class, and I would lose signifigant development time. (I'm talking weeks here.)
    Who walks the stairs without a care
    It shoots so high in the sky.
    Bounce up and down just like a clown.
    Everyone knows its Slinky.

  6. #31
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There it is again. PEAR. Really, suppose I'd better get myself over to their site and have a rake around to see exactly how much it's moved on...

  7. #32
    "Of" != "Have" bronze trophy Jeff Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    2,063
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey, I'm not saying Pear is great, it just had 3 classes I needed to use for Deluxe Mail
    Who walks the stairs without a care
    It shoots so high in the sky.
    Bounce up and down just like a clown.
    Everyone knows its Slinky.

  8. #33
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  9. #34
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryF
    How hard can it be to implement "import"? For me it would seem you only need to impose the rule that namespaces must correspond to directories and class names to file names. You then search the include path looking for them.
    Off the engine2 list this morning in response to a suggestion about namespaces and how to structure them to use directories:

    Quote Originally Posted by [size=1]Andi Gutmans[/size]
    It's not a question of a patch. Your email doesn't cover how the classes
    live in the PHP run-time space, how they are looked up at run-time and how
    they are qualified. It also doesn't cover functions/constants and variables.
    Where to put/how to name the classes on the hard disk is not the issue and
    never was.
    Andi
    Another (longer) quote in response to the same email:
    Quote Originally Posted by [size=1]Stanislav Malyshev[/size]
    VS>> That is to say, if you have a FOLDER called System/ that contains a
    VS>> class Object and a folder called Machine/, one called Web/, and in
    VS>> Web/ there are classes and subdirectories, say UI/, and so forth.

    OK. Starting from here: If you have System/Web/UI space, does it relate in
    some way to System/Web space? If not, you've got exacly what we had in NS
    implementation before it was removed, replacing '/' with ':', and even
    probably less, since you did not describe how classes in the same space
    relate. If yes, what would the relation be?

    VS>> the keyword "import" means "look in the following space for class files",
    VS>> then namespaces can be as simple as having
    VS>>
    VS>> import System.Web.UI
    VS>>
    VS>> mean "load all of the files in UI directory as includes(), but on the

    This is not related to namespaces per se. This is autoloading mechanism,
    which can be, BTW, implemented with no relation to namespaces whatsoever.
    I once wrote package system proposal which based on lines along this, but
    never actually got to implementing it, and now I see PEAR has its own
    packaging system, which I have no time to learn either...

    VS>> The rules would be as simple as saying import references
    VS>> directory/subdirectory paths, and without an import command you use a
    VS>> similar syntax to reference a class which resides in a file of the
    VS>> same name.

    So, there must be one-class-per-file approach? Not too good.

    VS>> So
    VS>>
    VS>> import System.Object
    VS>>
    VS>> means there is a subdirectory in System/ called Object/.
    VS>>
    VS>> But
    VS>>
    VS>> class Something extends System.Object
    VS>>
    VS>> ignores the folder called Object and looks for (and errors our on the lack
    VS>> of) a file called Object.php in the folder System/.

    So, you got disk lookup on each 'extends' statement? No good.

    VS>> Whatever syntax you use is a minor point, be it the traditional DOT
    VS>> reference or your : or :: reference.

    As a side point, dot reference is no more traditional than ':' or '::'.

    VS>> I have tried to follow your issues about namespaces, and I have to
    VS>> say I am afraid this email may not have addressed the issues
    VS>> adequately. But I hope there might be some sort of use in this idea
    VS>> that would resurrect the use of namespaces. It may not be

    Your idea, as I see it, lies in the field of packaging implementation.
    Namespaces is not the same as packaging, though the former can be used in
    the latter. The problems with namespaces were not 'how do we locate this
    class on disk', but how to implement scoping and scope importing in
    logical, efficient and easy-to-use way. The decision was reached that the
    way we have is not ripe for putting it into the language, so it was
    removed.
    I think there is more too it than mapping the import keyword to a directory structure...

    Cheers,
    Keith.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for that tip off. That it's a question of scoping I can now understand the reasoning behind this. Fair enough - it's it's not ready and effecient then probably is best to leave it out so that PHP5 can get rolling sooner rather than later.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Enthusiast BDKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil.Roberts
    It seems to me that every single one of these "PHP vs *" debates always seems to boil down to "PHP doesn't have a decent class library". Which in my mind equates to "Nobody else has done all my work for me, so it can't possibly be as good as another language where someone has".

    PHP5 will add a lot of extremely useful features, the best one to my mind being the exception handling. Namespaces are NOT a big deal to anyone who takes a bit of care with their code.

    But then another criticism of PHP also seems to be "It doesn't hold my hand for me". Well tough, maybe you should learn to code a bit better.
    I'm with you Phil! OO is cool and all that other enterprise buzzword'ism has it's place somewhere(?), but that said, PHP still kicks **** in spite of it.

    BDKR
    If you're not on the gas, you're off the gas!

  12. #37
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BDKR
    I'm with you Phil! OO is cool and all that other enterprise buzzword'ism has it's place somewhere(?), but that said, PHP still kicks **** in spite of it.

    BDKR
    **** WARNING - RANT *******

    Let me make this very clear. Object Orientation is absolutely not an enterprise buzzword. I have no idea who you have been listening to, but that is simply nothing more than utter hogwash coming from someone who has not worked with it. It's a mighty useful way of working, which can save you enourmous amounts of time. While OOP might not be the best fit in all cases, it certainly is in many, much more often than procedural coding. I'm confident almost every experienced developer here will agree that OOP is much more than an enterprise buzzword.

    Anyway, regarding IDEs...

    I'm seriosuly dumbfounded by all this talk about that tools don't make the developer, etc. And that we should all try to be better developers instead, for 2 reasons:

    1. The language is a tool in itself. PHP is an abstraction layer for C. C is an abstraction layer for Assember. Assembler is an abstraction layer for... uh.. I have no idea. Point is, this goes all the way down to the electrical signals that goes in and out of the CPU. I have a buddy who have manipulated these pins directly - now there's a frickin' programmer! Even so, the CPU in itself is also a tool you are manipulating. At some level, you are going to be working with tools - that's just the way it is. Just because you use the very powerful web developement platform that is PHP does not make you a bad programmer, just because you can't do it C (or assember, for that matter). In the same manner, there is no shame in using an IDE or a class library when you are coding.

    Sidenote: I think this is another of those male-genitalia-measuring-issues where you are supposed to do everything without help from anything. Pizza???! You pansy!!! Go shoot a deer in the forest and cook it yourself, you wimp. Using someone elses functions will not make you a wimp, not even a bad developer. (You might still be a wimp as well as a bad developer, but that is another story)

    2. PHP holds your hand MORE than Java and .NET. PHP is simple to understand and work with. That is one of the main reasons it's so popular, and that's the thought Rasmus Lerdorf had when he was developing it. You don't have to worry about casting or data types when working with PHP. It works fine without separating code and content, and you can use it just fine without knowing anything at ALL about OOP. And up until just recently (and still enabled on most hosts) variables from POST and GET requests popped up as variables in your application. PHP is the very definition of handholding! When working with ASP.NET (and JSP, to a certain extent), you MUST care about data types/casting, be very familiar with OOP, and separate your code from your content. You are not allowed to "cheat".

    With that said, PHP is still a great language, and I also think you can do very good OO coding with it. However, there is nothing wrong with using languages that have more extensive functionality. It will not make you a bad developer. It will not make your wang smaller.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  13. #38
    Sidewalking anode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Philadelphia, US
    Posts
    2,205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Johansson
    Assembler is an abstraction layer for... uh.. I have no idea.
    Turing machines
    When working with ASP.NET (and JSP, to a certain extent), you MUST care about data types/casting, be very familiar with OOP, and separate your code from your content. You are not allowed to "cheat".
    Weak and/or dynamic typing is hand-holding? Is this one of those 1984 "Freedom is Slavery" things?
    TuitionFree a free library for the self-taught
    Anode Says... Blogging For Your Pleasure

  14. #39
    "Of" != "Have" bronze trophy Jeff Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    2,063
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Assembler is an abstraction layer for Machine-Code, no?

    In any case, I agree completely with you Mattias, even though I don't use OOP in PHP a lot because of the limitations, and I don't feel it is as important with PHP applications.

    .NET and Java own PHP in terms of OOP, and no, OOP is not an enterprise buzzword, it is a very useful tool.

    (PS: I hate working with assembler.)





    Edit:

    3 posts away from 1000
    Who walks the stairs without a care
    It shoots so high in the sky.
    Bounce up and down just like a clown.
    Everyone knows its Slinky.

  15. #40
    ********* wombat firepages's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    1,717
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    bugger ..

    with you all the way until ...

    "there is nothing wrong with using languages that have more extensive functionality. It will not make you a bad developer. It will not make your wang smaller. "
    Becasue PHP is so easy , and yes it certainly does hold your hand through lots of stuff , peeps often forget , or never get to appreciate how much functionality it really has, its too easy to bookmark PHP as 'for MySQL based Dynamic webpages' etc because yes its bloody good at that , and simple to boot.

    But it can do sooo much more , OOP or no OOP ... its pointless going into lists etc cos we have been there before and its a pissing match.

    And whilst I have no problem using ready-made classes/applications , knowing what happens under the hood is important IMO if only for security reasons , look how many got shafted by early versions of phpBB etc.

    As for the size of my wang , luckily I received a few emails today that will help with that for only $19-95 +p&p

  16. #41
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by firepages
    Becasue PHP is so easy , and yes it certainly does hold your hand through lots of stuff , peeps often forget , or never get to appreciate how much functionality it really has, its too easy to bookmark PHP as 'for MySQL based Dynamic webpages' etc because yes its bloody good at that , and simple to boot.
    I agree with you entire post. PHP has an excellent functionality set, which spans far and wide. I was just responding to the claims that one should learn to be a better developer instead of using better tools.

    edit - and PHP may have a more extensive functionality overall, with all those hojillions of functions. I think .NET actually forces you to write more of the stuff yourself than PHP, which luckily is rather easy, due to the excellent class library.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  17. #42
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is nothing wrong with Assembler Language actually... It just means it taxes you mentally more than high level languages such as PHP for example, though I wouldn't go back to it now... Been a few years and I need what brain cells I have

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    PHP for Wang? (it runs on OS/2 and Novell after all)

  19. #44
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HarryF - Have we not moved on from that era ?

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have we not moved on from that era ?
    Probably but having said that, worked at a place a couple of years back where Wang was still much in use, thanks to an incumbent Wang administrator.

    Wonder what they call you if your job is to work with Wang technology?

    [Sorry - just derailing the discussion]

  21. #46
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Wangler?

    Cheers,
    Keith.

  22. #47
    "Of" != "Have" bronze trophy Jeff Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    2,063
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm a fan of the name 'Wang Technology.'
    Who walks the stairs without a care
    It shoots so high in the sky.
    Bounce up and down just like a clown.
    Everyone knows its Slinky.

  23. #48
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,748
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LoL


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •