On Mon, August 22, 2005 12:03 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 14:16, Rick Emery wrote: >> >> "I read the following article and I wanted your feedback on it. >> http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2002/papers/html/php/#section_6. I I only read half-way through it... His first thesis (Section 2, after the Intro) that PHP's strength comes from co-mingling HTML and business logic has some merit... But, really, you can make a mess of that equally well in ANY language. Only a disciplined architecture and design will stop that. Section 3 Since this section is based on FACTUALLY INCORRECT statements, it's utter bullshit. Re-defining a function in PHP generates an error. The PHP class system provides distinct name-spaces for functions (and more) His entire these is un-tenable. Section 4 Again, FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Virtually *all* of the settings can be over-ridden in .htaccess, and/or in PHP code itself. At this point, I quit reading. It's clear the author has NO CLUE about how PHP actually works. When a guy writes a document that is all anti-PHP that is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, why would you bother to use it for anything at all? PS There are also several typos in the document, which never helps. -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
