Someone loves PHP...

Someone loves PHP...

[mockturtle]

I guess that someone here will appreciate this...

Someone loves PHP...

http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

...but not the author of the blog (as you can guess by the URL)

Riccardo

Re: Someone loves PHP...

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 11/26/2015 3:38 PM, mockturtle wrote:
> I guess that someone here will appreciate this...
>
> Someone loves PHP...
>
> http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>
> ...but not the author of the blog (as you can guess by the URL)
>
> Riccardo
>

According to the blog requirments of a computer language:

1) A language must be predictable.
2) A language must be consistent.
3) A language must be concise.
4) A language must be reliable.
5) A language must be debuggable.

I do not know of any computer language that meets these. Ada get close
I suppose. But I would say most computer languages would fail on  1,2 and 4.

--Nasser

Re: Someone loves PHP...

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

On 11/27/2015 04:01 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> 
> 1) A language must be predictable.
> 2) A language must be consistent.
> 3) A language must be concise.

I don't completely agree. A language must be readable and easy to understand.
Conciseness is desirable when it doesn't detract from or enhances those
properties, but often it is the opposite.

Use clauses are an example of this. They promote conciseness, and when writing
such code it seems quite easy to read and understand. But decades of experience
have shown that such code is often more difficult to read and understand when I
come back to it a few months later than if I had not used use clauses. As a
result, I have become mostly use-averse, and have strict guidelines on when to
use them.

> 4) A language must be reliable.
> 5) A language must be debuggable.

Again, I don't really agree. A language must minimize opportunities to make
errors. Debugging in most languages consists of finding things that don't
manifest until run time, and then as incorrect behavior, most of which would be
caught by the compiler for a well designed language, and most of the rest would
be caught by run-time checks for things not practical to detect at compile time.
What remains are usually logic errors, and traditional debugging is not very
helpful for those, unless you think of it as debugging your own thought processes.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"My legs are gray, my ears are gnarled, my eyes are old and bent."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
81

Re: Someone loves PHP...

[G.B.]

On 27.11.15 12:01, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 3:38 PM, mockturtle wrote:
>> I guess that someone here will appreciate this...
>>
>> Someone loves PHP...
>>
>> http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>>
>> ...but not the author of the blog (as you can guess by the URL)
>>
>> Riccardo
>>
>
> According to the blog requirments of a computer language:
>
> 1) A language must be predictable.
> 2) A language must be consistent.
> 3) A language must be concise.
> 4) A language must be reliable.
> 5) A language must be debuggable.

The length at which statements like these border on
the ridiculous becomes apparent once you test their
negations (contradictions and contraries):


1) A language must be unpredictable.
2) A language must be inconsistent.
3) A language must be verbose.
4) A language must be unreliable.
5) A language must be non-debuggable.

1) A language need not be predictable.
2) A language need not be consistent.
3) A language need not be concise.
4) A language need not be reliable.
5) A language need not be debuggable.


But such is journalism. Works better when big words have
little substance.

Re: Someone loves PHP...

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:31:08 +0100, G.B. wrote:

> On 27.11.15 12:01, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 11/26/2015 3:38 PM, mockturtle wrote:
>>> I guess that someone here will appreciate this...
>>>
>>> Someone loves PHP...
>>>
>>> http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>>>
>>> ...but not the author of the blog (as you can guess by the URL)
>>>
>>> Riccardo
>>>
>>
>> According to the blog requirments of a computer language:
>>
>> 1) A language must be predictable.
>> 2) A language must be consistent.
>> 3) A language must be concise.
>> 4) A language must be reliable.
>> 5) A language must be debuggable.
> 
> The length at which statements like these border on
> the ridiculous becomes apparent once you test their
> negations (contradictions and contraries):
> 
> 1) A language must be unpredictable.
> 2) A language must be inconsistent.
> 3) A language must be verbose.
> 4) A language must be unreliable.
> 5) A language must be non-debuggable.
>
> 1) A language need not be predictable.
> 2) A language need not be consistent.
> 3) A language need not be concise.
> 4) A language need not be reliable.
> 5) A language need not be debuggable.

Cannot resist, but quote Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL

"No, the Real Programmer wants a 'you asked for it, you got it' text editor
- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous."

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Someone loves PHP...

[Shark8]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 1:58:45 PM UTC-7, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
> Cannot resist, but quote Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL
> 
> "No, the Real Programmer wants a 'you asked for it, you got it' text editor
> - complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous."

Vi... *blegh*