Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <2853216.eVYhDPjVhS@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:18:39 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.10.5 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+&. <4129338.JVDsMHeclA@PointedEars.de> <1434655.Yjjdx3QzlV@PointedEars.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 63 NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Oct 2013 12:18:53 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 8a0bb6dd.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=]n<_o;W4?gF78PK[oJ2ng@4IUK On 10/28/13, 9:34 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/27/13, 10:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> […] The one thing that is fairly certain is that the >>>>> player will almost certainly NOT be written in PHP, >>>> >>>> That much is true. >>>> >>>>> as PHP is normally a server side language, and few clients will >>>>> understand it. >>>> >>>> A common misconception. *No* programming language is “normally” either >>>> “server-side” or “client-side”. >>> >>> Clearly a falsehood. >> >> [superseded] >> >>> I would expect that at least 95% of PHP executions >>> are done via mod-php or php-cgi in response to a http request, [tl;dr] >> >> So even by your standards there are 5% left for “client-side” >> applications. > > I consider 95% to be a reasonable definition for "normally". I will add > that I normally ignore what you say because normally you are just > spouting gibberish (as it seems here). Why do you reply to the canceled posting? Your logic is flawed. “normally” is a weasel word. Much like with other programming languages, there are applications of PHP that have nothing to do with the client-server architecture. Apparently you do not know them. Rest assured that your numbers are from *thin air*. OTOH, I did not expect a reasonable, well-founded argument to begin with “Clearly”, as pointed out in the posting that superseded the one you replied to. >> Please do not quote signatures. > > I don't, my reader automatically removes signatures from quotes, of > course if you put something before the signature delimiter, it ISN'T a > signature. For someone who likes to spout about what standards say, it > would make sense that you would follow them. There is no standard about it; there is a recommendation (RFC 1855). Like several other people on Usenet, I choose to interpret it differently, and to write my signature above the signature delimiter when I have something else in my (randomly chosen) .sig that exceeds the recommended limit of four lines. So you need your newsreader to think for you? Score adjusted PointedEars -- Sometimes, what you learn is wrong. If those wrong ideas are close to the root of the knowledge tree you build on a particular subject, pruning the bad branches can sometimes cause the whole tree to collapse. -- Mike Duffy in cljs,