Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder2.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!news.osn.de!diablo2.news.osn.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <2130969.q27fuSdkfm@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:46:11 +0200 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <4f86cda7$0$2912$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com> <6651622.883.1334288601914.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfj25> <7I9jr.212617$sE1.169738@fx22.am4> <1507037.RFmFTntJpl@PointedEars.de> Followup-To: comp.lang.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 54 NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Apr 2012 14:46:12 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: f073133d.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=L52Y`S2aAZ:^8FBo0_81f>ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1nkgeX?EC@@0IRTKiQcV`14DZm8W4\YJNK0fQ>EOE\[m`;EbaSZSi7493 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:5779 Tony Marston wrote: > "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote in message > news:1507037.RFmFTntJpl@PointedEars.de... Will you ever learn to post? >>Tony Marston wrote: >>> No, you assume that I'm incompetent because I have the balls to disagree >>> with you. >> >>I am afraid that in your case it is your bold and wrong statements about >>(PHP) programming that show you as being inexperienced at least. > > My statements about PHP programming are not wrong for the simple reason > that they work, Your logic is flawed. Even things that are objectively wrong to do may appear to work in simple cases. > and anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together should know > that something which works cannot be wrong just as something which does > not work cannot be right. But people with a lot more than two brain cells to rub together know that "it works (now)" has never been a good criterion for code quality. > The argument from Jerry Stuckle is simple "You are not doing it the same > way as me, therefore you are wrong!" No, I don't think so. > I am not doing it the same way as Jerry Stuckle because I prefer a > different way, a better way. You are preferring a different way, but not necessarily a better way. In fact, it has been showed to you more than once that your way – in favor of which you have provided no arguments other than "I don't care" – has a number of shortcomings that the "traditional" way, if you want to call it that, does not have. You are just refusing to accept that because, in your humble opinion, it does not matter. But in any non-trivial piece of code, especially in code that is not used by only one person, it does matter. BTW, pi's Law. You lose. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann