SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53
  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard stereofrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    4,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes it works great (seems we need to define what this 'great' means), just like Cobol and Basic did in their times. The question is if you have fun coding with it.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the (good) programming language is something that has some kind of conception or idea behind it. PHP actually, was never designed, it's still just a wrapper around the bunch of C functions, not a "language".
    Face it, PHP is dirty. There has been virtually zero upfront design and everything has been hacked together.
    First, I think you guys could show a little respect for all the design and hard work that have gone into getting PHP to where it is today. I understand what you are trying to say, but what you are saying is not only incorrect -- it's not cool.

    What you call "dirty" is really a reflection of the utilitarian way that PHP is developed. For example, PHP has over 3000 functions (and growing) available to the programmer. Most other languages have only a few hundred. That has been a driver behind PHP's success. That many are "wrapper around the bunch of C functions" was a early decision that has been central to PHP's success. That is because the thin wrappers maintain performance and are immediately familiar to those who know the library's interface.

    If you use PHP then you obviously find it to be a "good" programming language.
    Christopher

  3. #28
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    656
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    but what you are saying is not only incorrect -- it's not cool.
    If you're refering to the quote about PHP not being a language, then I agree.

    What you call "dirty" is really a reflection of the utilitarian way that PHP is developed.
    Face it, PHP is utilitarian in the way it is developed

  4. #29
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Face it, PHP is utilitarian in the way it is developed
    I agree, but to say it just "bad" or "dirty" is misrepresenting the process behind PHP. You may not like some things about PHP or not like the process. That's your opinion which reflects more on you tastes than on PHP.
    Christopher

  5. #30
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    I agree, but to say it just "bad" or "dirty" is misrepresenting the process behind PHP.
    Would you call it "clean" or "elegant"?

    Douglas
    Hello World

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Would you call it "clean" or "elegant"?
    I wouldn't call it any of the above because I am not competent to pass such a judgement and because "bad", "dirty", "clean", "elegant" can be said about parts of all languages and systems.

    Responding directly to the "clean" or "elegant" question, I think that as far as enabling server side scripting (PHP's intended design purpose) it is pretty hard to beat PHP's drop dead simple access to the server from web pages. It is pretty obvious that things like JSP and ASP.NET were influenced by PHP's "clean" and "elegant" solution to web scripting.

    Are there things I would like to see improved in PHP -- yes! Ask the core PHP group and they will give you a longer list that we could come up with. I'm all for "clean" and "elegant" but the best solutions aren't always.
    Christopher

  8. #33
    eschew sesquipedalians silver trophy sweatje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    3,749
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sometimes I refer to my more unwieldly solutions as "accreted rather than designed". Perhaps this applies somewhat to PHP.
    Jason Sweat ZCE - jsweat_php@yahoo.com
    Book: PHP Patterns
    Good Stuff: SimpleTest PHPUnit FireFox ADOdb YUI
    Detestable (adjective): software that isn't testable.

  9. #34
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    oz
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    First, I think you guys could show a little respect for all the design and hard work that have gone into getting PHP to where it is today. I understand what you are trying to say, but what you are saying is not only incorrect -- it's not cool.
    Did you all learn nothing from school? ... popularity is what counts in life!

  10. #35
    SitePoint Wizard stereofrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    4,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    First, I think you guys could show a little respect for all the design and hard work that have gone into getting PHP to where it is today. I understand what you are trying to say, but what you are saying is not only incorrect -- it's not cool.
    Alright, it wasn't my intent to hurt anyone, and I'm sorry if I did... Finally PHP is just a programmer's tool, one of thousands out there. If it's ok for you, why worry about someone's criticism?

    Peace?

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did you all learn nothing from school? ... popularity is what counts in life!
    Not sure what that means.
    If it's ok for you, why worry about someone's criticism?
    I don't mind specific criticisms of PHP and I have them as well. I just think that saying "PHP actually, was never designed, it's still just a wrapper around the bunch of C functions, not a "language"." does not respect all the hard work done by a lot of smart people who cared enough to contribute to make PHP the useful tool it is today.
    Christopher

  12. #37
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    blah article (both the oracle and the nut case working on whidbey (asp.net 2)). old saying goes, you can never prove a believer wrong.

    and dirty is a relative adjective that has different connotations to different people. dirty to one person is bad code, dirty to another person is a powerful tool that can get down and do business (yet still have clean code). So i wouldn't get upset or defensive about it.


    what is better, stuck with one framework or having many frameworks to choice from? I think this guy has it all wrong, its not that asp.net is a bad thing or that open source people are all about idealogy even when illogical, its about choice and being able to chose something that fits more of your style and needs without it being overkill.

    I'm tired of the .net preaching. I work with it all the time and i still prefer php
    because of the biggest factor, choice.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    oz
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    Not sure what that means.
    I don't mind specific criticisms of PHP and I have them as well. I just think that saying "PHP actually, was never designed, it's still just a wrapper around the bunch of C functions, not a "language"." does not respect all the hard work done by a lot of smart people who cared enough to contribute to make PHP the useful tool it is today.
    Hard work (ie effort) != achievement

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I must say I am pretty impressed by someone who thinks that PHP is not quite an achievement (as are Java, .NET, Ruby, Python, etc.). But then, when software you wrote is running on 20 million domains I will criticize those who make negative generalisms about your code as well.
    Christopher

  15. #40
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    oz
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arborint
    I must say I am pretty impressed by someone who thinks that PHP is not quite an achievement (as are Java, .NET, Ruby, Python, etc.). But then, when software you wrote is running on 20 million domains I will criticize those who make negative generalisms about your code as well.
    Jesus christ. By the same rasoning, you would say .Net is great simply because people used it. The same reasoning could be used to say that which ever person is elected (in high school elections or in national politics) is the right choice. Popular opinion is no indication ofthe quality.

    Python is by far the nicests language for so many reasons (too lazy to type em up), but it will never be popular. Similarly, VB was used very widely, but is a horrid piece of cr*p.

    I wouldn't begin to say PHP is a bad language as such, just that it could be useful in the right situation and inappropriate in other situations - including the non-syntax-related issue that you need to know quite alot not to mess up a system written in php.

    Your arguments seem to be very emotionally charged and hence subjective/non-objective. Saying it is "uncool" to discuss the downside of using php, or to say that because they worked hard we shouldn't mention the downsides, or to say popularity all seem to be grasping at straws to make your emotional argument seem like a logical one.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    By the same rasoning, you would say .Net is great simply because people used it.
    I did, but not simply because people use it. It also had many very smart people behind it who, in my opinion, made many good design decisions.
    Popular opinion is no indication ofthe quality.
    Actually popularity is an indication of quality. It certainly is not proof of quality, but it is a good indicator.
    Python is by far the nicests language for so many reasons (too lazy to type em up), but it will never be popular. Similarly, VB was used very widely, but is a horrid piece of cr*p.
    Again, just generalisms and opinion. Someone else says VB is the nicest language and Python is a horrid piece of cr*p. And what do we have: two more general opinions that are truely no indication of anything.
    Saying it is "uncool" to discuss the downside of using php
    I never said it was "uncool" to discuss the downsides of PHP. I discuss them as much as anyone. My objection was at making generalizations like "PHP was never designed" when in fact a pretty smart group of people have made thousands of design decisions to get PHP to where it is today. You or I may not like parts of that design -- that's fine. But there is a difference between specific criticism of code or design choices and these broad criticisms of a person or group's work.

    PS - I like and use Python, and am getting into Ruby, so I probably agree with you on the specifics.
    Christopher

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lazy_yogi
    Python is by far the nicest language
    This thread is so full of bad logic it is just funny

    You've got people shouting that PHP wasn't "designed" on one hand, others saying there were "design decisions" made, and then up comes the quote above! That's a language I don't like because of a fundamental design decision!

    Popularity can be for lots of reasons, one of which is how easy it is to get to grips with. PHP wins massively here.

    Douglas
    Hello World

  18. #43
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Face it, PHP is dirty. There has been virtually zero upfront design and everything has been hacked together.
    I'm not sure what you mean by dirty, my understanding is that you can intertwine html and asp.net as well.

    I do not type a single character of html in my n-tier aplications, I use tree controls, datagrids, form controls, application objects, dataobjects, ect... all with php.

    sure php doesn't come with these objects and I aggree that the millions of functions and lack of classes encouridges nasty code, but does that make the langauge "dirty"?? or just the developer.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    oz
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DougBTX
    That's a language I don't like because of a fundamental design decision!
    Sorry to go off topic, but I'm curious what it is that you aren't happy with in python?

  20. #45
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Short answer "Yes with a 'but'", long answer "No, with an 'if'". .

    PHP can certainly used for Enterprise systems but only if they don't have certain requirements. There is nothing in the language that really prevents large scale system development if approached with a sound Software Engineering methodology ... you can avoid spaghetti code, you can create solid logical seperation etc etc.

    However, PHP has some problems with certain common features of "Enterprise" systems and is not really suited for some applications at this level.

    I think the big problem with these types of arguments is the actual definition of "Enterprise". When I talk about Enterprise software I mean mission-critical, massively scalable distributed applications - the stuff that runs banking systems. This is a fine point as PHP can be used to create very complex apps ... SugarCRM is a great example, but there is a difference between this type of application and the type of apps you find running inside banks (or even ebay), for example.

    Thing is, PHP just doesn't have the feature set or tools for operation at this level ... for example, PHP doesn't have features for distributed operation ... Java has RMI//IIOP that allows native Java distribution as well as Corba integration. This means that in PHP you can create logical tiers but not physical ones (other than at the database level). On a management level, PHP doesn't provide support for transactional components - EJB, COM+, Corba all allow the packaging of components and deployment within a transactional ORB - at the very high end these kind of features are essential for operation. Transactions in general are pretty scratchy in PHP - Java, for example provides a Transactional API that allows management of distributed transactions across disparate distributed datasources (including non-relational and arbitrary proprietary systems). Again, such requirements are pretty ubiquitous at what I consider the "Enterprise" level. (Most people using PHP use MySQL which has it's own problems with transactions).

    PHP also does not have a security model ... Java and .Net both have very effective Role-Based security architectures that allow for very precise control. In Java, for example, components can have method-level permissions based on Roles ... can simplify security a great deal. The other big thing missing is messaging ... message-based architectures are really common at this level because the use of asynnchronous messaging is incredibly scalable.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The above is all true. And it is also built on asumptions like: you can't build mission-critical Enterprise software without CORBA or that the only way to achieve distributed data integrety is to use some Transaction API. Certainly things like RMI//IIOPare ways to solve these problems, but not the only ways.

    I think this type of comparison between PHP and other systems that are used to also build non-web apps is pretty common. PHP really doesn't try to compete on their turf. PHP is built on a mix and match system. But many of these same problems can solved in ways that are really beyond the ken of those who see Sun's or IBM's or Microsoft's stack as the only solutions to these kinds of problems.
    Christopher

  22. #47
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are a slew of applications that you can't build without some of those features ...

    PHP really doesn't try to compete on their turf.
    That's pretty much my point ... it all depends on exactly what you mean by "Enterprise". When I use the term I tend to be talking of applications that are really outside the scope of PHP altogether. It's a stupid term that is often to justify "Enterprise" scale licensing fees ... and in is often used as a stock defense of PHP by the Java and .Net crowds: "Well, PHP may be easier for 'simple' sites, but I'll think you'll find it's not suitable for the Enterprise". In most cases this is just pure FUD and we all know it.

    Curious though: how do you do distribution in PHP without native support? Web Services?

  23. #48
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are a slew of applications that you can't build without some of those features ...
    Maybe yes, maybe no. It really depends on how you build them.
    When I use the term I tend to be talking of applications that are really outside the scope of PHP altogether.
    True if you build them that way. With a more web-centric architecture maybe there are fewer like that.
    Curious though: how do you do distribution in PHP without native support? Web Services?
    Not completely sure what you mean. Perhaps one answer is that the PHP world tends to use existing solutions for scaling and distribution like Apache, LDAP, Oracle, etc. rather than some custom middleware. Web Services is a totally different area where PHP is quite at home.
    Christopher

  24. #49
    SitePoint Addict mx2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    php, even though it can not cover in some of the above areas, is continually being built to work with other technologies including java and. dot net. Php does its job that it was designed for, building rapid dynamic web pages and web applications. It is scalable if designed properly and flexible.

    again "enterprise" is a subjective term with no concrete definition among developers as it changes per person's world view.

    Personally I see a great advantage to php working towards tighter intregration with other languages, letting php does what it does best and then letting other languages deal with things where their strength lies rather than trying to make one language do everything.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally I see a great advantage to php working towards tighter intregration with other languages, letting php does what it does best and then letting other languages deal with things where their strength lies rather than trying to make one language do everything.
    I agree. For example, connecting to Java middleware that uses RMI//IIOP is one direction you could take. But you could also look at your overall architecture and see whether you really need a heavy middleware layer.
    Christopher


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
  •