Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #5471 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-04-11 20:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-04-13 15:27 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-04-11 20:48 -0700
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-12 00:03 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-12 05:46 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 12:42 +0000
Re: Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 20:43 -0700
Re: Dynamic form generation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-04-12 21:55 -0700
Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 13:19 +0000
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-13 09:59 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 13:22 +0000
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-17 14:49 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-17 11:36 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 09:33 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-18 07:59 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-19 09:56 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-19 08:29 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 09:27 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-20 07:47 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 12:22 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-21 10:19 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 11:45 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-22 10:09 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 18:21 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 20:56 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 09:23 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-24 16:20 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 10:04 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-25 08:29 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:45 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-22 19:21 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 13:50 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 11:10 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 17:11 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 18:54 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-24 18:55 +0100
[OT] Was: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-25 13:22 +0200
Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 12:46 +0100
Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:51 +0100
Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-27 10:26 +0200
[OT] Yes-or-no questions (was: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 07:56 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-04-14 08:53 -0500
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 08:33 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-16 09:31 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-16 08:33 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-16 15:11 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-16 11:18 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-17 09:18 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-17 06:07 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 09:10 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-18 08:09 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-19 09:27 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-19 08:41 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-20 10:10 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-20 08:09 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 10:35 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-21 06:21 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 10:27 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-22 10:43 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 15:23 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 12:24 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 17:29 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:37 +0100
What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 14:10 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> - 2012-04-23 14:22 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-04-23 15:27 +0200
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:33 -0400
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 15:26 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 12:25 -0400
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2012-04-23 19:45 +0200
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:35 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-24 19:45 +0200
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-28 08:48 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-28 09:23 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-28 08:37 -0400
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 14:46 +0200
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:31 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-24 12:32 +1000
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-24 19:32 +0100
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 19:02 +1000
Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-25 12:20 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-22 23:59 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-23 14:05 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:35 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-23 15:41 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-23 20:39 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-23 09:47 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-25 08:52 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-04-25 08:34 -0400
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-27 09:52 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-27 14:16 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Charles <cchamb2@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 15:23 -0700
Re: Dynamic form generation "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-12 10:52 +0100
Re: Dynamic form generation Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-13 11:39 +0200
Re: Dynamic form generation Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-04-13 15:27 +0200
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 12:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jn3vn9$vme$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5679 |
On 4/23/2012 10:23 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jn15dt$gjl$1@dont-email.me... >> On 4/22/2012 5:27 AM, Tony Marston wrote: >>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... >>>> >>>> On 4/21/2012 5:35 AM, Tony Marston wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> From your description, any good programmer can tell your code is crap. >>>> Only those like yourself can't see crap when it's described. >>> >>> Your definition of crap code seems to be nothing more than "it doesn't >>> follow my rules, therefore it must be crap". >>> >> >> My definition of crap code is that "it is bloated, overly complicated and >> doesn't follow generally recognized rules". IOW, everything you've shown >> your code to be. > > You call my code bloated because I have included the option to change the > password validation rules by changing values on a screen whereas you have to > change the code. My method may have taken slightly longer to code, but it > also means that changes are easier to implement. > I call your code bloated because it contains extra code for an unnecessary function no one else does because it's a "feature" no one needs and no one asks for. A simple one line of code will do what your complicated database access, parsing and checking will do. That one line of code is not only more efficient but can handle many more possibilities. > You call my code overly complicated because it has a pre-written validation > class whereas to have to write code to validate each piece of user input. > Yes, your code is unnecessarily complicated when it has to have an entire class to do what a single line of code will do more clearly and more efficiently. > You say that my code does not follow "generally recognized rules" for no > other reason that the rules which it *DOES* follow are not the same as > yours. There is no single set of rules that is universally folowed by all > programmers, so I follow the rules which I consider to be the most > appropriate. > Once again you need to actually UNDERSTAND OO programming. These are not "my rules" - they are long established "rules" accepted by world-recognized experts on the subject. >>>> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >>>> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or >>>> competence. In fact, just the opposite is true. >>> >>> So, as this is a newsgroup for PHP programmers you are effectively >>> saying that every member of this group is stupid and incompetent? Do you >>> know how arrogant that makes you sound? >>> >> >> No, you're putting words in my mouth (again). > > No I'm not. Your exact words were, and I quote: "PHP programmers as a whole > are not known for their intelligence or competence. In fact, just the > opposite is true." The phrase "as a whole" tends to encompass the entire PHP > programming fraternity, not just a select few. > That's right. I didn't say there are no good programmers. But as a whole they are not known for their intelligence or competence. You are a perfect example of that. >> I'm not saying every member of this group is stupid or incompetent. There >> are a number of people here who are quite intelligent and competent, whose >> opinions I regard highly. > > Only those who dare not disagree with anything you say. I am the > founder-member of the "I disagree with everything that Jerry Stuckle says" > society, so I don't think I'm in that group. Ask me if I care! > Nope, there are people I disagree with here but still respect. I, too, have learned from those people. And quite frankly, I really don't give a damn if a penny-ante "programmer" who thinks database applications are complicated agrees with what I say or not. I do care about what good programmers think, however. > <snip> >>>> What do you think a setter is if it's not a method? And you never have >>>> answered how the programmer can change one property without building a >>>> whole array. Or get a single property? >>> >>> The table data already exists in the object as an array, so the >>> programmer can examine or change the contents of the array at will. The >>> programmer does not have to build the array, it is already there! Why >>> can't you understand such a simple concept? >> >> Yes, you've already said you don't understand one of the basic principles >> of OO programming - encapsulation. > > Encapsulation has nothing to do with information hiding, only implementation > hiding. Encapsulation does not require te use of getters and setters. > You obviously do not understand the concept of encapsulation. Once again I suggest you read a good book on it. Booch would be an excellent start. However, I suspect it will be way over your head. It's meant for programmers. >>>> Also, the presence of set/get methods does not preclude the parsing of >>>> arrays. I have both, for instance. >>>> >>>>>> If you understood even the very basics of OO programming (one of which >>>>>> is encapsulation), you would know why they are needed. >>>>> >>>>> Getters and setters are NOT required for encapsulation. Encapsulation >>>>> means *implementation* hiding, not *information* hiding. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, and the properties of the class (i.e. variables) are part of the >>>> implementation. >>> >>> Implementation means code, not data. >> >> That's where you don't understand even basic OO. Implementation means >> both code and data. > > No it does not. On the subject of "Encapsulation is not data hiding" take a > look at the following articles: > Encapsulation has nothing to do with "data hiding". I never said it did. But it DOES have EVERYTHING to do with controlling ACCESS to the data. Once again, I suggest you read a book by a recognized expert in the field, not something on the internet written by someone as incompetent as you. > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-05-2001/jw-0518-encapsulation.html > http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm > http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/ > > <snip> >>> My framework generates less code than yours because it uses more >>> generalised functions. I don't use the copy paste method that you seem >>> to favour. >> >> Your framework generates less code because it's only a half-assed >> implementation of even basic OO principles (which you have repeatedly >> shown you don't understand). > > My framework is an implementation of MY understanding of the principles of > OOP just as your framework is an implementation of YOUR understanding of the > same principles. When you consider the fact that there is no universal > agreement on what "Object Oriented Programming" actually means then it is > not surprising that two individuals have a totally different understanding. > Yet I am not the one who is saying that *MY* understanding is the only > opinion worth having. > And your understanding is pure crap. There IS a universal agreement on the basic principles of OOP by recognized experts in the field. > Take a look at these articles to see if you can identify a definition of OOP > with is universally accepted: > > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DefinitionsForOo > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs > http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/26776 > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/whypr.htm > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/core1.htm > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/beyondhw.htm > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentsAgainstOop > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsDead > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsaHoax > http://dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveFailedNarrative.html > http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4216597/Nuts-to-OOP > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientedForDummies > Once again I urge you to read a book by a recognized expert in the field and not something on the internet written by a person who has no understanding of what OOP really is. Which of those are your articles, BTW? >>>> But less code can mean MORE complexity. However, you've never worked >>>> on anything non-trivial, so you wouldn't understand. >>> >>> How can less code be more complex? >> >> Again, it shows how little you know. Just because there code is smaller >> does not mean it's easier to understand. Sometimes it's better to add >> code to make it more understandable. > > I agree that several lines of simple code is easier to understand than one > line of complex code, which is why I like to keep my code as simple as > possible. Yet you seem to object that it is "too simple". > I never said anything of the sort. >>> <snip> >>>>> Take a look at the definition of "ERP" at >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning and tell me >>>>> I'm wrong. I don't have all the modules listed there, but SME's don't >>>>> need all those modules. >>>> >>>> I suggest you read it. An ERP system HAS all the modules. You can't >>>> pick and choose. It's an integrated system. >>> >>> If you read the definition properly you will see that it is a set of >>> integrated modules, and not all users require all modules. My ERP system >>> does much more than deal with just sales orders. It does what my users >>> want, and I care more for their opinion than I do yours. >>> >> >> No, not all users require all modules. However, all ERP systems PROVIDE >> all modules. > > I don't provide modules that have not been requested. > To be called an ERP system it must supply all those modules. Whether a customer wants to use every module is immaterial. Yours is not an ERP system - it is a simple order entry/tracking system. > I started off by calling it an order processing system, but my first > customer insisted that it was much more than. So if a paying customer says > that it is an ERP system why should I accept your definition? > An ERP system is one which handles the ENTERPRISE - that's why it's called ENTERPRISE resource planning. It includes not only order entry/tracking but inventory, accounting, payroll, customer relations and a whole bunch of other things. > <snip> >>>>> No I don't. You told me yourself that you regularly cut, paste and >>>>> modify code. I don't need to do that as the code is defined once in a >>>>> reusable function. >>>> >>>> Exactly. But that's not duplicated code. It's starting with a code >>>> template and modifying it to suit my needs. That way you don't need to >>>> start from scratch every time. >>> >>> If you were really competent you would create a version of that code >>> template that could be reused as a single function instead of having to >>> be copied and modified multiple times. >> >> And you've just proved that once again you have no idea what you're >> talking about. >> >> A good example - a table with 25 columns. Most are text/numeric, but one >> is a 20MB BLOB. >> >> In one form you want to display all columns in a two column table >> (label/value). This one is easy. >> >> In a second case you want to display 10-16 of those columns in a 4-column >> table; 6 columns will be displayed or not based on values in other >> columns. 1 (the BLOB) will be displayed if it is not null. >> >> In the third case, you want to display 5 columns in a 5 column table row >> (only). You do not want to retrieve the BLOB column as it is unnecessary >> overhead (bloat). >> >> Let's see your template do that. > > The number of columns which are retrieved from the database is not > controlled by the template. By default all columns are retrieved, but the > defaults can be changed whenever needed. > So answer the rest of my question. >>> <snip> >>>>> An application can be described as "complex" by looking at the volume >>>>> of >>>>> business rules which have to be implemented. Using the Radicore >>>>> framework I can quickly generate working transactions which already >>>>> handle the boring work of moving data between the database and the user >>>>> interface, which leaves maximum time to spend on the payload, the >>>>> business rules. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can claim that for your simple database applications. But then you >>>> need to do that to satisfy yourself you're working on "complex" >>>> applications. Those of us who have worked on truly complex >>>> applications know better. >>> >>> A complex application has complex business rules. A simple application >>> has simple business rules. The number of lines of code is irrelevant. If >>> I can take an application that uses 3M LOC and achieve the same result >>> using half as many LOC would that automatically make my version half as >>> complex? I think not. >>> >> >> In your universe, yes. Anyone who has worked on truly complex >> applications knows better. But people who only do simple database >> applications think a few rules make something complex. I hate to burst >> your balloon, but it doesn't. You can keep deluding yourself, though. > > While I agree that an application which does nothing more than move data > between the database and the user interface and does not have any business > rules to process is a simple application, it is naive to say that the > addition of a large number of complex rules does not turn it into a more > complex application. > You have never worked on a complex application, so you don't really understand what "complex" is. Adding a few business rules doesn't make an application "complex". > Using my framework all the simple stuff can be done without writing any > code, but the complicated stuff, the processing of business rules, requires > the programmer to actually add code to the relevant classes. It is the > volume of code which the programmer has to add to the framework-generated > code which adds to its complexity. > More code = more complexity? Nope. You can have a large amount of code (with no bloat) yet still be a simple application. > Just because you think that a database application cannot possibly be > complicated does not make it so. > I never said a database application can't be complex. But nothing you've done ever has been. >>>> So? You've claimed you've worked on "database applications for >>>> decades". That's long before PHP existed. You opened the door. Now >>>> you're backpedaling. Typical. >>> >>> I am not back pedalling. This newsgroup is for people who write database >>> applications in PHP, so comments about writing operating systems or >>> compilers are irrelevant. >> >> You are back-pedalling. This is not a database newsgroup, nor is it a >> newsgroup for people who write database applications. You brought up >> databases, not me. > > If you bother looking at what the OP wrote he wanted a way to generate an > HTML form from a MySQL table structure. That is why I am talking about > databases in this post. > You brought up database applications in general, not the OP. Now you're backpedaling. >>> Before I starting writing database applications with PHP I wrote >>> database applications with a variety of other languages. That shows that >>> my experience of writing database applications has not been confined to >>> the PHP language. Tellme how that is back pedalling? >>> >> >> All database applications. Trivial to anyone who's ever worked on truly >> complex applications. You brought up an irrelevant subject, and now >> you're back-pedaling because I pointed out the fallacy in your argument. >> >> The fact is all you've EVER done is simple database applications. You >> have no idea what a complicated application is. > > I shan't bother replying to such a pathetic statement. > That's because you have no response. It's true. >>>>> Applications which are NOT web applications and NOT written in PHP are >>>>> irrelevant. >>>> >>>> Only because all you do are trivial applications in PHP - and you do >>>> it poorly, at that. >>>> >>>>>> Even DOS 1.0 was more complex than anything you've written. >>>>> >>>>> DOS is not a web application written in PHP, so it's irrelevant. >>>> >>>> Nope, and neither were the "decades of database applications" you >>>> claimed to have written in the very post I'm replying to. >>> >>> The fact that my experience with other languages meant that I wrote >>> database applications for the desktop does not mean that it is totally >>> irrelevant when using PHP to write database applications for the web. A >>> database application is a database application regardless of whether the >>> user interface is the web or the desktop. >> >> You're bringing up other languages and databases claiming they're >> relevant - yet when I mention other languages or applications you claim >> they are irrelevant. > > I am constantly talking about "database applications" because they are > relevant to this topic. Non-database applications, such as operating systems > and compilers are totally irrelevant. > Only to you. But then you're good at backpedaling. The op asked nothing about a "database application". Merely a way to display tables. You're the one who brought up your order entry/tracking system which you so pathetically call an ERP. >> The truth is you have no leg to stand on so you keep trying to change the >> subject and/or claim something is irrelevant. >> >>>> Nor is database normalization (which you also claimed to know how to >>>> do properly - which I also doubt) in that same post. >>> >>> I shall treat that remark with the contempt it deserves. >> >> Good. You are contemptful. > > Of you, yes. > My mistake. I meant you are contemptible. Wrong word. >>>> But the incompetent need to have it both ways - ignore the rules when >>>> it benefits them but claim it's off topic when the rules don't suit >>>> them. >>> >>> You so are saying that I'm incompetent simply because I refuse to follow >>> YOUR rules? Do you know how arrogant that makes you? >> >> No, widely recognized rules by experts. > > Who says that the rules that you choose to follow were written by experts? > What about different sets of rules written by different sets of experts? > There are world-wide recognized experts like Booch in the field who agree on the same rules. Show me any world-wide experts who support your "rules". And someone with a blog on the internet doesn't count. >> But you refuse to follow them. Do you know how arrogant (and stupid) that >> makes YOU? >> >> But once again you refuse to discuss the issue and attack back. You're >> only showing your stupidity. > > No, I'm showing that I don't agree with you. > You're only showing your stupidity. >>>> Which means a mixture of conformant and non-conformant passwords in >>>> your database. Anyone knowledgeable of security would cringe at such a >>>> setup. >>> >>> Any competent person would tell you that if the password validation >>> rules are changed in such a way as to make all exissting passwords >>> non-conformant then you get everybody to change their passwords so that >>> all NEW passwords conform to the NEW rules. >> >> Which is why you set the rules ahead of time. But that's not what you >> claimed earlier, so you have to once-again back-pedal. > > Password validation rules MAY be set when the application is first > installed, but it is also possible that they MAY be changed some time later. > have yiu never heard of customers changing their minds? > Not in this instance, no. >>>> But it really doesn't matter - it's all bloatware anyway. > > Only in your opinion. > And any good programmer. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. Then show us what major pieces of software (especially open source) includes such a function. After all, if it's so important to everyone, then there must be a lot of programs which implement it. >>>> Bloatware. If a customer wants a customized password rule, it's one >>>> line of code to change. And it doesn't add all that unnecessary >>>> complexity (bloatware) to the script. >>> >>> So you are admitting that in YOUR implementation if you want to change >>> the password validation rules then you have to change your code. In MY >>> implementation this can be done by changing a value in the database, and >>> you have the audacity and arrogance to call that bloat! >> >> Sure. It's a one line change to the code. Quick, simple, and >> straightforward. But once a system is installed, I've NEVER had a >> customer ask for the rules to be changed. That's because we discuss the >> pros and cons of different rules up front. >> >> Plus I don't have to stay on the phone trying to talk the customer through >> how to implement his new rules. > > If you design a simple screen which allows a user to define different > password validation rules then your are a poor designer. > If you bloat your code with unnecessary and unwanted functionality, then yes. >> Your method is nothing but bloat - which is why you're the only one who's >> ever implemented such a stupid concept. > > It is not boat, it is a valid option. It is also an option that can be > modified without having to change a single line of code. > Then show us what major pieces of software (especially open source) includes such a function. After all, if it's so important to everyone, then there must be a lot of programs which implement it. >>>>>> How many customers have actually demanded the need to change the >>>>>> rules? In over 30 years of programming for clients, none of mine have. >>>>> >>>>> None have had to demand such a facility for the simple reason that it >>>>> is >>>>> supplied as standard. >>>> >>>> My point exactly. Bloatware. A feature no one wants or cares about. >>> >>> My customers care for it, and their opinion means more to me than yours. >> >> I highly doubt your customers give a damn about it. Maybe they do because >> you sold them on how great it is - but then snake oil salesmen are good at >> that. > > I don't sell then anything that doesn't work. I ask then what password > validation rules they want rom day 1, then I show then how to set those > rules using the screen provided. They then know how to change the rules > should they ever want to. > If you properly explain the advantages and disadvantages of different rules from the outset, then they can decide from the outset what they need. However, once again - do you give them the ability to change their screen layouts? That is something people want regularly. > <snip> >>> Your personal insults are adding nothing to this newsgroup. Please try >>> showing a bit more professionalism and maturity. >> >> No personal insult. Just the truth. > > No, just your version of what you assume the truth to be. > No personal insult. Just the truth. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-26 17:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tJemr.75$Qu1.36@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #5681 |
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:jn3vn9$vme$1@dont-email.me... <snip> >> You call my code bloated because I have included the option to change the >> password validation rules by changing values on a screen whereas you have >> to >> change the code. My method may have taken slightly longer to code, but it >> also means that changes are easier to implement. > > I call your code bloated because it contains extra code for an unnecessary > function no one else does because it's a "feature" no one needs and no one > asks for. Then how do you account for the fact that the only reason I added that featue into my framework is because someone actually asked for it? > A simple one line of code will do what your complicated database access, > parsing and checking will do. That one line of code is not only more > efficient but can handle many more possibilities. Yes, but my method will allow the customer to change the rules on a screen instead of asking me to change some code. >> You call my code overly complicated because it has a pre-written >> validation >> class whereas to have to write code to validate each piece of user input. > > Yes, your code is unnecessarily complicated when it has to have an entire > class to do what a single line of code will do more clearly and more > efficiently. You are missing the point AGAIN! Using your method you actually have to write a line of code for each field that needs to be validated. With my method you don't have to write any code at all as the framework automatically calls the validation object to validate eveything in the input array at a single stroke. >> You say that my code does not follow "generally recognized rules" for no >> other reason that the rules which it *DOES* follow are not the same as >> yours. There is no single set of rules that is universally folowed by all >> programmers, so I follow the rules which I consider to be the most >> appropriate. > > Once again you need to actually UNDERSTAND OO programming. These are not > "my rules" - they are long established "rules" accepted by > world-recognized experts on the subject. Different groups of developers have different sets of arbitrary "rules" or "standards" which exist on top of basic programming principles. There is no single set of rules which is universally adopted by *ALL* programmers. The "rules" that I follow are not necessarily the same rules that you follow, but so what? Who says that *YOUR* rules are he only rules that are allowed to exist? As for my understanding of the principles of OO programming, I simply stick to the basic principles of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism as documented in http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql/what-is-oop.html Anything other than the basic principles is an optional extra, is totally superfluous, and can safely be ignored. <snip> >>> I'm not saying every member of this group is stupid or incompetent. >>> There >>> are a number of people here who are quite intelligent and competent, >>> whose >>> opinions I regard highly. >> >> Only those who dare not disagree with anything you say. I am the >> founder-member of the "I disagree with everything that Jerry Stuckle >> says" >> society, so I don't think I'm in that group. Ask me if I care! >> > > Nope, there are people I disagree with here but still respect. I, too, > have learned from those people. I can't learn from you for the simple reason that you can't teach me anything of value. <snip> >>> Yes, you've already said you don't understand one of the basic >>> principles >>> of OO programming - encapsulation. >> >> Encapsulation has nothing to do with information hiding, only >> implementation >> hiding. Encapsulation does not require the use of getters and setters. > > You obviously do not understand the concept of encapsulation. Once again > I suggest you read a good book on it. Booch would be an excellent start. > However, I suspect it will be way over your head. It's meant for > programmers. The definition of encapsulation is "The act of placing data and the operations that perform on that data in the same class. The class then becomes the 'capsule' or container for the data and operations." There is nowhere in that definition which says anything about hiding the data by setting access to "private", or even setting operations to "private". <snip> > Encapsulation has nothing to do with "data hiding". I never said it did. > But it DOES have EVERYTHING to do with controlling ACCESS to the data. > Once again, I suggest you read a book by a recognized expert in the field, > not something on the internet written by someone as incompetent as you. Access is controlled by changing a property from "public" to "private". If it is "public" then it can be accessed directly without using a getter or a setter. If it is "private" then it cannot be accessed directly and therefore can *ONLY* be accessed using a getter or a setter. Therefore the use of getters and setters is directly related to the hiding of data by changing its access from "public" to "private". Encapsulation does *NOT* mean information hiding, therefore I do *NOT* have to make all my properties private, therefore I do *NOT* have to use geters and setters. <snip> >>> Your framework generates less code because it's only a half-assed >>> implementation of even basic OO principles (which you have repeatedly >>> shown you don't understand). >> >> My framework is an implementation of MY understanding of the principles >> of >> OOP just as your framework is an implementation of YOUR understanding of >> the >> same principles. When you consider the fact that there is no universal >> agreement on what "Object Oriented Programming" actually means then it is >> not surprising that two individuals have a totally different >> understanding. >> Yet I am not the one who is saying that *MY* understanding is the only >> opinion worth having. > > And your understanding is pure crap. There IS a universal agreement on > the basic principles of OOP by recognized experts in the field. There is *NO* universal agreement on what OO is and is not. Take a look at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs if you don't believe me. >> Take a look at these articles to see if you can identify a definition of >> OOP >> with is universally accepted: >> >> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DefinitionsForOo >> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs >> http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/26776 >> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm >> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/whypr.htm >> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/core1.htm >> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/beyondhw.htm >> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentsAgainstOop >> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsDead >> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsaHoax >> http://dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveFailedNarrative.html >> http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4216597/Nuts-to-OOP >> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientedForDummies > > Once again I urge you to read a book by a recognized expert in the field > and not something on the internet written by a person who has no > understanding of what OOP really is. Oh I see! Only those books or articles which support your twisted view are the ones worth considering! How arrogant you are! There are thousands of books and articles which have been written about programming in general and OO programming in particular, yet there is no single set of "rules" which have been accepted by everyone. It is impossible to follow every set of rules that has ever been published, so I choose to follow only those rules which seem sensible to me. > Which of those are your articles, BTW? None. They were written by others who are also not impressed with some of the rubbish ideas that have somehow been turned into "rules". <snip> >>>> You so are saying that I'm incompetent simply because I refuse to >>>> follow >>>> YOUR rules? Do you know how arrogant that makes you? >>> >>> No, widely recognized rules by experts. >> >> Who says that the rules that you choose to follow were written by >> experts? >> What about different sets of rules written by different sets of experts? > > There are world-wide recognized experts like Booch in the field who agree > on the same rules. Show me any world-wide experts who support your > "rules". And someone with a blog on the internet doesn't count. There are plenty of "experts" out there who agree on different sets of rules. There is no single set of rules which is universally followed by *all* experts. I just happen to follow a different set of rules which are favoured by a different set of experts. Of course you are so arrogant you will no doubt say that the experts that I follow are wrong while the experts that you follow are the only experts worth listening to. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 20:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jn4b1u$av2$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5679 |
Tony Marston wrote: > "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message Tony: I just deleted about 300 lines of you trying to tell Jerry something he doesn't want to hear. Please. kill file it and get a life. Unless you enjoy argument for its own sake, like Jerry. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 14:10 +0100 |
| Subject | What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <Iwclr.268651$y11.135218@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #5624 |
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... <snip> > Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP > programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. > In fact, just the opposite is true. All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and incompetent. Anyone care to comment? -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 14:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <3nlap7t8v3qolloupv8uvnst96rtafeouo@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5672 |
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:10:00 +0100, "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message >news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... ><snip> >> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. >> In fact, just the opposite is true. > >All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that >self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and >incompetent. > >Anyone care to comment? Those that can, do. Those that can't, croticise. -- Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.sandrila.co.uk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 15:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <9vl3lcF2ruU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #5672 |
Am 23.04.2012 15:10, schrieb Tony Marston: > "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... > <snip> >> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. >> In fact, just the opposite is true. > > All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that > self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and > incompetent. > > Anyone care to comment? This is as much true as saying "English native speakers are not known for their intelligence because the rudimentary grammar only foments basic thoughts.". As to PHP, I would put it that way: PHP is the programming language with the highest rate of people doing "how to build a web application without knowing what the web and an application is". Enough? /Str.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 09:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <jn3lmh$s5a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5672 |
On 4/23/2012 9:10 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... > <snip> >> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. >> In fact, just the opposite is true. > > All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that > self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and > incompetent. > > Anyone care to comment? > ROFLMAO! The last refuge of the incompetent. You can't defend your position so you start with the personal attacks. No, I don't think everyone is either stupid or incompetent. But I KNOW you are! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 15:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <REdlr.326447$yJ4.185609@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #5675 |
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:jn3lmh$s5a$1@dont-email.me... > On 4/23/2012 9:10 AM, Tony Marston wrote: >> "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... >> <snip> >>> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >>> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or >>> competence. >>> In fact, just the opposite is true. >> >> All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that >> self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and >> incompetent. >> >> Anyone care to comment? >> > > ROFLMAO! The last refuge of the incompetent. You can't defend your > position so you start with the personal attacks. > > No, I don't think everyone is either stupid or incompetent. That isn't what you wrote. > But I KNOW you are! No, you assume that I'm incompetent because I have the balls to disagree with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 12:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <jn3vpt$vme$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5680 |
On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jn3lmh$s5a$1@dont-email.me... >> On 4/23/2012 9:10 AM, Tony Marston wrote: >>> "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message >>> news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... >>> <snip> >>>> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >>>> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or >>>> competence. >>>> In fact, just the opposite is true. >>> >>> All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that >>> self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and >>> incompetent. >>> >>> Anyone care to comment? >>> >> >> ROFLMAO! The last refuge of the incompetent. You can't defend your >> position so you start with the personal attacks. >> >> No, I don't think everyone is either stupid or incompetent. > > That isn't what you wrote. > >> But I KNOW you are! > > No, you assume that I'm incompetent because I have the balls to disagree > with you. > > No, you've shown your incompetence by your comments in this very newsgroup. There are people whom I greatly respect who disagree with me also. But those are competent programmers. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 19:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <4F959545.5070308@invalid.lan> |
| In reply to | #5682 |
On 23-04-2012 18:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > No, you've shown your incompetence by your comments in this very > newsgroup. There are people whom I greatly respect who disagree with me > also. But those are competent programmers. > yaaaawn......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 20:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <jn4au5$av2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5683 |
Luuk wrote: > On 23-04-2012 18:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> No, you've shown your incompetence by your comments in this very >> newsgroup. There are people whom I greatly respect who disagree with me >> also. But those are competent programmers. >> > > > yaaaawn...... > > I've never seem jerry offer any respect to someone who disagreed with him, even when they were 100% demonstrably correct. > But you are right Luuk. Its time to watch TV or play a mindless computer game where trolls are things you routinely slaughter for minor acquisitions of virtual treasure... I've slaughtered jerry only to find there was nothing worth looting whatsoever apart from a bag of piss and wind. And that is commoner than bullshit when all is said and done. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-24 19:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <1507037.RFmFTntJpl@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #5680 |
Tony Marston wrote: > "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jn3lmh$s5a$1@dont-email.me... >> On 4/23/2012 9:10 AM, Tony Marston wrote: >> No, I don't think everyone is either stupid or incompetent. > > That isn't what you wrote. > >> But I KNOW you are! > > No, you assume that I'm incompetent because I have the balls to disagree > with you. I am afraid that in your case it is your bold and wrong statements about (PHP) programming that show you as being inexperienced at least. PointedEars -- > If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices" > in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right... Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field. -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 08:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <BhNmr.4609$JQ.3631@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #5702 |
"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote in message news:1507037.RFmFTntJpl@PointedEars.de... > >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, 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. The argument from Jerry Stuckle is simple "You are not doing it the same way as me, therefore you are wrong!" I am not doing it the same way as Jerry Stuckle because I prefer a different way, a better way. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 09:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <jng9e9$o9h$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5775 |
Tony Marston wrote: > "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote in message > news:1507037.RFmFTntJpl@PointedEars.de... >> >> Tony Marston wrote: >>> No, you assume that I'm incompetent because I have the balls to disagree >>> with you. >> >> I am afraid that in your case it is your bold and wrong statements about >> (PHP) programming that show you as being inexperienced at least. > > My statements about PHP programming are not wrong for the simple reason > that they work, and anybody with more than two brain cells to rub > together should know that something which works cannot be wrong just as > something which does not work cannot be right. > > The argument from Jerry Stuckle is simple "You are not doing it the same > way as me, therefore you are wrong!" > > I am not doing it the same way as Jerry Stuckle because I prefer a > different way, a better way. > What makes you think Jerry actually writes any code at all, ever? I have seen no evidence of it. All I ever found was that he had a training company once, that no longer generates any revenue. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 08:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <jngoat$eqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5776 |
On 4/28/2012 4:23 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Tony Marston wrote: >> "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote in message >> news:1507037.RFmFTntJpl@PointedEars.de... >>> >>> 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, 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. >> >> The argument from Jerry Stuckle is simple "You are not doing it the >> same way as me, therefore you are wrong!" >> >> I am not doing it the same way as Jerry Stuckle because I prefer a >> different way, a better way. >> > What makes you think Jerry actually writes any code at all, ever? > > I have seen no evidence of it. > > All I ever found was that he had a training company once, that no longer > generates any revenue. > ROFLMAO! How you wish! I made more money last week than you have all year. Of course, you admit you're "semi-retired" - because you can't find a job. I've never seen any of the code you've "written". That's because you never have written any. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 14:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <2130969.q27fuSdkfm@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #5775 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-23 20:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <jn4amm$9mu$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5672 |
Tony Marston wrote: > "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... > <snip> >> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. >> In fact, just the opposite is true. > > All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that > self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and > incompetent. > > Anyone care to comment? > I would say that Jerry Stuckle has been looking into the mirror again. After all he does claim to be a PHP programmer although I have never seen him post a line of his own code. And as far as I recall his dormant company used to be a training company but now shows zero turnover at all. Which suggests why he is so twitter and bisted and has time to troll so many usenet groups. -- To people who know nothing, anything is possible. To people who know too much, it is a sad fact that they know how little is really possible - and how hard it is to achieve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-24 12:32 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <tj3cp7l3hsfbkrcps98arpgaquvr8r7hrh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #5672 |
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:10:00 +0100, Tony Marston wrote: >"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message >news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... ><snip> >> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP >> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. >> In fact, just the opposite is true. > >All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that >self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and >incompetent. > >Anyone care to comment? For a change, I think he might be close to correct. Having dealt with a large quantity of other people's code, especially some very large WordPress plugins, I have to say that PHP code quality that I've seen in the wild is often very poor. At least a compiled language enforces *some* quality corrections on one's code, whereas PHP (and also JavaScript) seem to be designed to help total newbie programmers get the job done. This is good, but it also leads to piles of excremental code that "work" much in the same way that Microsoft Access allows newbie database wranglers to build databases that "work". Sure, you get bad code in any language, but I sincerely believe that I've seen more bad PHP code than other bad code (even bad classic ASP code). Which is not to say that said code didn't "work", for limited values of "work". The entry level for writing working PHP code is very low, so you get all comers. Most will learn over time and improve, as we all continue to do (or most of us anyway, I hope!) Conversely, I've seen some truly marvellous PHP code. -- Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia "There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." - Gandhi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-24 19:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <timstreater-DC4C5C.19322424042012@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #5694 |
In article <tj3cp7l3hsfbkrcps98arpgaquvr8r7hrh@4ax.com>, Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:10:00 +0100, Tony Marston wrote: > > >"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message > >news:jmu1nc$fui$1@dont-email.me... > ><snip> > >> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP > >> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or competence. > >> In fact, just the opposite is true. > > > >All you PHP programmers in this group now know that Jerry Stuckle, that > >self-proclaimed guru and OO expert, thinks that you are stupid and > >incompetent. > > > >Anyone care to comment? > > For a change, I think he might be close to correct. Having dealt with a > large quantity of other people's code, especially some very large > WordPress plugins, I have to say that PHP code quality that I've seen in > the wild is often very poor. > > At least a compiled language enforces *some* quality corrections on > one's code, whereas PHP (and also JavaScript) seem to be designed to > help total newbie programmers get the job done. This is good, but it > also leads to piles of excremental code that "work" much in the same way > that Microsoft Access allows newbie database wranglers to build > databases that "work". > > Sure, you get bad code in any language, but I sincerely believe that > I've seen more bad PHP code than other bad code (even bad classic ASP > code). Which is not to say that said code didn't "work", for limited > values of "work". The entry level for writing working PHP code is very > low, so you get all comers. Most will learn over time and improve, as we > all continue to do (or most of us anyway, I hope!) All of which is interesting but irrelevant. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-25 19:02 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers |
| Message-ID | <daffp7h9crgc8gvfg604m08il8tgcf11jt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #5704 |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:32:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: >All of which is interesting but irrelevant. Like Jerry? :) -- Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia "Well I must have a door in the back of my head Where I dump out all the crap so I can just feel solid again" - Dandy Warhols
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web