"Nathan Rixham" <nrixham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:497366F5.2030803@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Tony Marston wrote: >> "Skip Evans" <skip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message >> news:49723137.2010202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Wow, Tony, do you think in the future you could try to express yourself >>> with just a bit more civility and in a less condescending tone? >>> >>> Nathan expressed some thoughts he had, politely, and when out of his way >>> to come across in a non-critical and non-confrontational manner. >>> >>> Tony Marston wrote: >>>> Absolute rubbish! >>> There's just no need to insult other list members like this. >> >> Saying that someone's ideas are absolute rubbish is not an insult. >> Calling him a moron would be, but I did not. > > agreed, tone and meaning are so hard to convey using written words alone. > (you did say I was feeble brained though..) > >>> Frankly, it's this kind of treatment that make these lists less >>> productive than they could be. >> >> And you think that his ideas for changing PHP to suit his particular >> programming style would be productive? I think not. > > you think not; I know they'd raise my productivity in php somewhat and > increase the scope where I can use php. > >>> It intimidates less experienced programmers from asking good questions, >> >> What makes you think that he is an inexperienced programmer? What makes >> you think that these are good questions? He is saying that he doesn't >> like the way that PHP works and wants it changed to suit his personal >> needs. > > inexperienced I am not, perfect I am not. all questions are good > questions, how can things progress when nobody questions? I love the way > currently php works and I'd like (and can see a need in certain > circumstances for) a bit of optional functionality which would increase, > yes my, productivity. I'm sure though if this can increase my productivity > it can increase others as well - I'd like to hear from some of the spl_ > and pdo_ devs on this, not to mention those who currently make orm's for > php such as the one in symphony. > >>> lest they get treated the way Nathan was. And isn't helping out less >>> experienced coders one of the reasons this list exists? >>> >>> And it also makes others less inclined to participate, or drop off the >>> list entirely. >> >> If it stops feeble minded people from filling this forum with useless >> requests then surely that's a good thing? Personally I'm sick and tired >> from reading posts such as this which say "I'm used to language X, and my >> feeble brain cannot cope with the differences, so why can't PHP be >> changed to behave like language X?" > > there you go with the feeble minded again tony.. > a: this wasn't a useless request, it was a request for opinions and votes. Yes, I think that any programmer who wants to change PHP so that it looks and feels more like his current language of choice simply because he cannot cope with the differences is feeble minded. > b: I'm used to PHP, it is my one of my current primary languages and has > been for a long time; I help others with both simple and complex problems > on this list and devote a hell of a lot of my personal time to helping > people use php to do what they want. I am definately an advocate of php, > contribute to open source projects and release packages which many > thousands of people around the world use. I've also used many other > languages and can see advantages and disadvantages to all of them; I'm not > so niave or feeble minded to think that php is perfect the way it is, it's > not - but it's a damn good language. > > c: nothing I'm suggesting would have any effect on you're php the cobol > way approach, I can easily cope with the difference, can you comprehend > that it wouldn't be changing any existing functionality only adding new > *optional* functionality. As others have already pointed out it would simply not be feasible to change PHP so that it can be switched between dynamic typing to static typing at the flick of a switch. PHP is dynamicly typed, so either get used to it or switch to a different language. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org > PHP has support for objects and classes, right down to type hinting on > arguments, exceptions, inheritance, reflection the whole lot - to add in > the bits that are missing seems rather logical to me; thats why we've got > the OO features that already exist. > > give me one good reason why optional type hinting / static typing of class > properties and normal variables would be a bad thing? and another of how > it would have any impact at all on you. > >>> It's NOT just so we can blast each other and show off our highly >>> dubiously assumed superiority. >>> >>> With all the frustrations we put up with in our daily lives, I would >>> hope a list like this, especially since we are among colleagues, could >>> be a place we could at least cautiously expect to be treated with >>> respect. >> >> Then the OP should respect PHP for what it is, and not request changes >> that would make it unusable for 99.999% of the millions of programmers >> who have already written millions of programs with it. PHP is successful >> because of the way it works, and changing the way it works, as suggested >> by the OP, would not make it more successful. On the contrary, I think >> that it would PHuck it up completely. >> >> But that's just my opinion. >> > > "make it unusable for 99.999% of the millions of programmers who have > already written millions of programs with it" - eh.. read tony; OPTIONAL, > this wouldn't have any impact or break any bc if done correctly - just > like typehinting on methods didn't.. > > php would work the same, just add in some *optional* functionality for > those who do need it, or would like to use it in parts of thier code. > > jesus man, calling me feeble brained when you can't work out what optional > means. > > better response? :p -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
