"Nathan Rixham" <nrixham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:49737051.9080908@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Tony Marston wrote: >> "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. > > but tony.. PHP is my current language of choice.. If it is your language of choice the it must be better than the alernatives. So if it is better then why are you saying that it is virually unusable without the "improvements" that you have suggested? >>> 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. >> > > flick of a switch? I'd be suggesting fully implemented optional code. > php is dynamically typed WITH type hinting on methods, > this would just be type hinting on variables as well. You did not ask for type HINTING on variables, you asked for static TYPING which is a different kettle of fish. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org > why switch when > a: php could have this implemented > b: I'm capable of using multiple languages and picking the correct one for > each scenario. > c: there is a gap between dynamic and statically typed languages that php > already addresses in part with typehinting on methods, it could fully > address this gap easily and be the best of both world for strict and > dynamic typers, just like it pretty much does for procedural and oo > coders. > > ps: already am used to it, will continue to be, but would like to see it > implemented. > > pps: rar rar rar tony, are you tony the tiger from that breakfast cerial? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
