Tony Marston wrote:
"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?
it's very usable tony and is beter than the alternatives (for developing
server side web applications fitting most common specs [imho]); but the
"improvements" I've suggested would make it more usable (ie allow me to
use php more efficiently in even more scenarios). Been able to use php
to make almost everything needed so far; but sometimes it does feel a
bit hacky and sometimes I can see how a specific part of the entire app
could be made better in another language).
Perhaps this addresses something per jesson said as well actually. There
is often a case where php suits 75% of the application while the
remaning 25% would be better suited in another language; in this
scenario often the two can't be seperated and thus rather than coding
around the functionality lacking it would be preferable to have the
limitation addressed in the language (if possible).
how non confrontational was that :p!
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.
ack i thought it'd be assumed; hell half the people say its strong vs
loose typing, some static vs dynamic, some optional static typing, some
type hinting - fact is php isn't precompiled so true static typing can't
be implemented thus yeah type hinting on variables and class properties
or optional static typing of variables and class properties both means
the same thing (to me).
still of the same opinion tony?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
