131–140 of 203 posts
Which is really kind of the problem with PHP. All of that broken stuff was allowed to be broken for so long that it's effectively impossible to fix it. All you can do is layer on more features.
It really pains me that there are so many utter misunderstandings about modern PHP from people that used it years ago and have no clue about the current landscape, even in this thread. Yes, the PHP core api is still a bit messy due to backward compatibility, but everything else it pretty awesome really. Please take a closer look if you haven't touched PHP in years, before you talk it down.
I remember PHP as I would imagine one would remember child molestation and you're asking me to give him a call and apologize?
No.
Whenever I hear "the new PHP" or "its not the old mess anymore", I say to myself, thats hardly the point. The key flaw I find with PHP is with its community and lack of any mature frameworks. Half of the PHP coders are hopeless script kiddies, thanks to low barrier entry it has, and I don't feel a single framework exists that can match Rails or Django. For the matter of fact, the framework with largest community, Cod…
The key flaw in the PHP community are people like you. People who still think that Codeigniter is THE PHP framework (it hasn't been for at least 3 years) yet still have the nerve to look down on newbie programmers.
The ignorance in your post is embarrassing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on the point of frameworks. I don't like any that exist so I made my own Rails-inspired one. Unfortunately this means I prefer not to do consulting jobs in PHP because it's considered bad practice to use a framework that no one else knows. (Mine has dynamic ORM (reads db schema), a console (REPL that loads project config and autoloader file), and similar project layout. Recently added REST API system that gen…
> I agree on the point of frameworks. I don't like any that exist so I made my own Rails-inspired one. With blackjack and hookers? Please say with blackjack and hookers.
While the gist behind this post is right, the article contains a number of factual errors. E.g. the version numbers in the "language features" section are pretty messed up: * Namespaces, closures and FPM were already in PHP 5.3 * The built-in web server was already in PHP 5.4 * Improved variadic functions, argument unpacking and phpdbg will be in PHP 5.6, which goes to beta in about a week.
Hi nikic. Thanks for the feedback! (I'm the author of that article). The O'Reilly editors made a few changes to the wording without my review that make it more ambiguous as to what features were introduced in what version. I agree as is it can be confusing. But the point is that the latest version of PHP provides all of these features. The variadic function statement was an error on my part and it has since been corr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi nikic. Thanks for the feedback! (I'm the author of that article). The O'Reilly editors made a few changes to the wording without my review that make it more ambiguous as to what features were introduced in what version. I agree as is it can be confusing. But the point is that the latest version of PHP provides all of these features. The variadic function statement was an error on my part and it has since been corr…
Do you really think tacking on more badly designed features makes PHP better? PHP's "closures" require you to write down the free variables in an enclosed function and tell PHP that they exist, that is something a compiler should be doing. Google "closure conversion".
Can you give an example? I googled "closure conversion" but didn't understand.
> It contains powerful new features and helpful developer tools, such as a built-in web server I haven't finished the article yet, but really? Is that what PHP needs? A built-in web server? It strikes me that adding more tools that incompetent web developers can abuse is what got them there in the first place. How long until we start having security releases for the PHP web server, because so many clueless devs decid…
What makes you think a "clueless" dev is going to find out there's a built-in web server in the first place?
I have been under the impression that that was, in fact, one of the reasons PHP has such a bad reputation (rightly or wrongly).
> It contains powerful new features and helpful developer tools, such as a built-in web server I haven't finished the article yet, but really? Is that what PHP needs? A built-in web server? It strikes me that adding more tools that incompetent web developers can abuse is what got them there in the first place. How long until we start having security releases for the PHP web server, because so many clueless devs decid…
Isn't that pretty much what people use with rails? No one says that is overkill.
EDIT: To clarify, a framework like Rails definitely has a place for including a web server.
Now Ruby has a lightweight web servers in its standard library (but not its core library). Maybe the problem people are seeing with the web server (and it's not a new problem) is the way PHP's core library contains so many things that other languages would leave out as optional includes.