Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #4604

Re: loose thinking

Show key headers only | View raw

Am 24.01.2012 17:59, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> M. Strobel wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2012 15:16, schrieb Peter H. Coffin:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:32:52 +0100, M. Strobel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay I see it is well documented. I just started testing.
>>>>
>>>> I am angry about it because not even isset() respects the null value
>>>> here. I think it makes more sense this way: isset($a[null]) should
>>>> return false, because there is no null index.
>>> Parens change precedence. Even on functions.
>>>
>>>> The point is that the designers of PHP (if you can talk about design
>>>> here) probably meant to help programmers in not making all these
>>>> hideous type distinctions, but the outcome is you have to be really
>>>> careful about loose comparison and unwanted type conversion, having to
>>>> write even more if constructs.
>>> Yup. If you want Pascal, you know where to find it.
>>
>> In my library, Niklaus Wirth, Algorithms and Data Structures, 3. Ed. 1983.
>>
>> But not so much in web programming.
>>
> Indeed. So strongly typed as to be almost unusable in the real world.
> 
> At least C gave you the cast and the union.
> 
> YOU try writing a disk access program in Pascal, where the sector coming off the disk
> might be a file or directory structure with a specific layout, or a simple block of
> binary data.
> 
> I gave up and rewrote the sodding thing in C..
> 
I don't agree to 'almost unusable'. It's a little OT, but...

Pascal was designed as a problem solver, not a system programming language. And it
was well accepted for speed and program clarity, until Delphi came out and people did
not know it was Pascal, and the move to Modula-2 divided the community more.

It left a gap as business logic solver, until Java tried to fill it. Not to talk
about baby babble COBOL.

/Str.

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 11:57 +0100
  Re: loose thinking "Álvaro G. Vicario" <alvaro.NOSPAMTHANX@demogracia.com.invalid> - 2012-01-24 14:04 +0100
    Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 14:32 +0100
      Re: loose thinking The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 13:41 +0000
        Re: loose thinking Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-01-24 09:35 -0500
      Re: loose thinking "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-01-24 08:16 -0600
        Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 17:35 +0100
          Re: loose thinking The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 16:59 +0000
            Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 19:11 +0100
        Re: loose thinking Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-01-25 04:49 +0100
          Re: loose thinking "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-01-25 07:58 -0600
            Re: loose thinking Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-01-25 20:37 +0100
      Re: loose thinking "Álvaro G. Vicario" <alvaro.NOSPAMTHANX@demogracia.com.invalid> - 2012-01-24 16:20 +0100
        Re: loose thinking The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 15:43 +0000
        Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 19:43 +0100
      Re: loose thinking Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2012-01-24 17:02 +0100
        Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 17:28 +0100

csiph-web