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

Groups > comp.lang.php > #2960 > unrolled thread

Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-08-26 21:14 +0200
    Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-08-26 20:42 +0100
    Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP "A" <a@a.a> - 2011-08-27 00:56 +0200
    Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> - 2011-08-26 21:37 -0400
      Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2011-08-26 21:58 -0400
        Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-08-27 09:15 +0100
        Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2011-08-27 18:20 -0400
      Re: Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-08-27 20:02 +0200

#2960 — Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP

Hello all,

having become a subscriber of PHP Classes recently, I have learned of an 
article that attempts to clarify certain misconceptions people might have 
about PHP (some of which have already been discussed here), that you might 
find interesting, too.  The author's "Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP" are:

 1. PHP is not a compiled language (it is interpreted)

 2. PHP cannot do X (access memory, control hardware devices,
    or some unusual purpose)

 3. PHP cannot do something that can be done in language X

 4. PHP is only for Web development

 5. PHP is controlled by only one company (Zend)

 6. PHP documentation is bad or insufficient

 7. PHP projects are not reusable because they are not Object Oriented

 8. PHP is worse than Ruby On Rails, Python Django, X language Framework

 9. PHP is not good for high performance scalable Web sites or applications

10. PHP developers are cheaper because they are not qualified

See <http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/155-Top-10-Wrong-Ideas-About-PHP-
That-You-Should-Get-Right.html> for details.


Regards,

PointedEars
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2961

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> having become a subscriber of PHP Classes recently, I have learned of an 
> article that attempts to clarify certain misconceptions people might have 
> about PHP (some of which have already been discussed here), that you might 
> find interesting, too.  The author's "Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP" are:
> 
>  1. PHP is not a compiled language (it is interpreted)
> 

That's pure sophistry, since it compiles at run time. Whether or not 
that makes it slower or faster than an interpreted language depends on 
what code is being excecuted.


>  2. PHP cannot do X (access memory, control hardware devices,
>     or some unusual purpose)
> 
Which they get around by saying 'but php extensnions can!'

That's a bit like saying that 'with additional software and hardware, 
and Apple II can send a rocket to the moon'

>  3. PHP cannot do something that can be done in language X
> 
Which is true. No language can do exactly what another language can do, 
although in terms of computers being (almost) infinite capacity Turing 
engyns its fair to say that any algorithm that can be written in one 
language can be written in another, it just gets very ugly sometimes.



>  4. PHP is only for Web development

  That's where its strengths play to, yes.

You can write an accounting suite in Assembler, too, but most prefer not to.


> 
>  5. PHP is controlled by only one company (Zend)
> 
Largely true historically.

>  6. PHP documentation is bad or insufficient
> 

That I will agree with. I've not fond much wrong in the documentation.

>  7. PHP projects are not reusable because they are not Object Oriented
> 
99.9999% f all reusable code is not object orieneted. This is a straw man.

>  8. PHP is worse than Ruby On Rails, Python Django, X language Framework
> 
Id say it was better.

>  9. PHP is not good for high performance scalable Web sites or applications
> 
Probably mostly true, if by high performance you mean using it as is, 
and not compiled to C++ in the way the article describes it.

At some point you have to distinguish between PHP the language, and PHP 
the runtime  environment. I am sure one could write  (and it seems 
someone has) - a PHP  complier to say - C++. There are BASIC compliers, too.



> 10. PHP developers are cheaper because they are not qualified
> 

Who can tell what qualification means anyway? I could easily set up a 
training school, and give people phoney bits of paper... as one regular 
poster here tried to do...


> See <http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/155-Top-10-Wrong-Ideas-About-PHP-
> That-You-Should-Get-Right.html> for details.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2963

> 1. PHP is not a compiled language (it is interpreted)

many servers support zend encoder, ioncube and other encoders. there are 
also some free ones too.
and you can even compile it to self-executing executable.. if you really 
want to... with phc or roadsend.
i know many of the above solutions feel like patches but they work and 
speed-up code.

but i think any decent server is configured to compile/cache scripts that 
are executed often.

> 2. PHP cannot do X (access memory, control hardware devices,
>    or some unusual purpose)

if you really want that you can do that with executing lower-level library, 
but why in the world would you need that in a language designed to serve as 
web developing platform?

> 3. PHP cannot do something that can be done in language X

like what?

> 4. PHP is only for Web development

no language is adequate for every purpose. not even the almighty C++.

> 5. PHP is controlled by only one company (Zend)

bull

> 6. PHP documentation is bad or insufficient

you haven't seen bad documentation. php docs are excellent especially if you 
count examples from community.

> 7. PHP projects are not reusable because they are not Object Oriented

what is stopping you to make modular reusable objects? heard about PEAR?

> 9. PHP is not good for high performance scalable Web sites or applications

yeah, facebook, youtube and wikipedia are all horrible, low performing 
sites.

> 10. PHP developers are cheaper because they are not qualified

just because it is not microsoft and doesn't come with certification program 
doesn't mean it is worthless.
there is a lack of some standard form of education but microsoft is also not 
known for being very creative company.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2965

In news:3179984.HZ2dv9Jhb0@PointedEars.de,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> typed:
> Hello all,
>
> having become a subscriber of PHP Classes recently, I
> have learned of an article that attempts to clarify
> certain misconceptions people might have about PHP (some
> of which have already been discussed here), that you
> might find interesting, too.  The author's "Top 10 Wrong
> Ideas About PHP" are:
>
> 1. PHP is not a compiled language (it is interpreted)

There is no such thing as a "compiled language". It's the apps and scripts 
written wth a language that are compiled. And PHP IS compilable! I use Inno 
for a compiler here when it's something I'm not sure where it'll end up.

>
> 2. PHP cannot do X (access memory, control hardware
>    devices, or some unusual purpose)

With the proper APIs etc., PHP can do just about anything someone wants it 
to do; sometimes cleanly, sometimes not so, just as with any other language.
>
> 3. PHP cannot do something that can be done in language X

LOL, well, if it could, it would be called "X", wouldn't it? Actually I'm 
being a bit facetious here but take a look at some of the forges for what's 
going on with PHP's forks & addons.
>
> 4. PHP is only for Web development

It was originally written for web development, not ONLY web development. It 
can be used wherever it will achieve the desired results. PHP is also seldom 
used alone, but along with HTML and CSS and several addons avalable for it, 
along with nearly any API.
>
> 5. PHP is controlled by only one company (Zend)

That's silly. Just like Apache, there are major outlets for it, but it's 
quite easy to find other sources for acquiring your favorte version of PHP. 
PHP is open source licensed and as long as the license terms are met, much 
can be done to/with it.
>
> 6. PHP documentation is bad or insufficient

Well, true in a way until you discover the two major repositories for PHP, 
one at w3schools.com and the other at the PHP Manual.com (forget the exact 
URL: haven't used it in awhile).
>
> 7. PHP projects are not reusable because they are not
> Object Oriented
>
> 8. PHP is worse than Ruby On Rails, Python Django, X
> language Framework

Ruby on Rails et al are different animals and it's not right to make such 
comparisons. I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim the RonR is PHP; it's 
not and AFAIK has never been claimed to be.
>
> 9. PHP is not good for high performance scalable Web
> sites or applications

PHP is NOT a stand-alone language. Often it's used with HTML and CSS to add 
security and protection to web site forms and the like.
>
> 10. PHP developers are cheaper because they are not
> qualified

And that's downright stupid. Qualified for what?  I've known some very, very 
efficient and knowledgeable PHP authors that run rings around most 
developers. And earlier where the comparison to Python was mentioned was an 
apple/oranges comparison as much of this post is.

There ARE some good sites that de-myth PHP, but that data certainly didn't 
come from one of those sites.  I'd guess the original artcle was written by 
an neophyte without a firm background in PHP/HTML/CSS/C++, or any of those 
languages.

And finally, blogs are terrible places to get reliable information on almost 
anything since you've no idea who wrote the stuff or their capabilities. 
Whenever using information from a blog, especially one of unknown 
reputation, it's very important to find that same information elsewhere in 
order to verfy and clarify what the original said.
    If you will do a Google search for PHP +myths, you'll find the first 
page has several good articles from reputable resources that do a much 
better job of handling they myth situation.
   If this is a class in PHP, then why the interest in myths? Your 
instructor needs to get back to basics and get some real teaching done 
instead of filling heads with data that after a day or so will be mixed in 
with real, factual data.

HTH,

Twayne`



> See
> <http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/155-Top-10-Wrong-Ideas-About-PHP-
> That-You-Should-Get-Right.html> for details.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> PointedEars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2966

Twayne wrote:

> 'PointyEars' typed:
>> ....
>> The author's "Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP" are:
>> ....

It seems to me you responders are, just perhaps, missing the subject
here. The 'Top 10 *Wrong* Ideas About PHP'.

Then you all go on to say how each one of the ten wrong things is
wrong!  Duh!!

-- 
   -bts
   -Could. Not. Resist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2967

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
> 
>> 'PointyEars' typed:
>>> ....
>>> The author's "Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP" are:
>>> ....
> 
> It seems to me you responders are, just perhaps, missing the subject
> here. The 'Top 10 *Wrong* Ideas About PHP'.
> 
> Then you all go on to say how each one of the ten wrong things is
> wrong!  Duh!!
> 
No. I went on to say that more than half were essentially right, in 
spirit, if not in letter..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2973

On 8/26/2011 9:58 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>
>> 'PointyEars' typed:
>>> ....
>>> The author's "Top 10 Wrong Ideas About PHP" are:
>>> ....
>
> It seems to me you responders are, just perhaps, missing the subject
> here. The 'Top 10 *Wrong* Ideas About PHP'.
>
> Then you all go on to say how each one of the ten wrong things is
> wrong!  Duh!!
>

Beauregard - look at most of the respondents.  Trolls of a feather flock 
together.  And almost every one of them spoke from what they knew.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2971

Twayne wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> typed:
>> having become a subscriber of PHP Classes recently, I
>> have learned of an article that attempts to clarify
>> certain misconceptions people might have about PHP (some
>> of which have already been discussed here), that you
>> might find interesting, too.  The author's "Top 10 Wrong
>> Ideas About PHP" are:
>>
>> 1. PHP is not a compiled language (it is interpreted)
> 
> There is no such thing as a "compiled language". It's the apps and scripts
> written wth a language that are compiled. And PHP IS compilable! I use
> Inno for a compiler here when it's something I'm not sure where it'll end
> up.
> 
> […]

I am getting the idea that some of you have not read my posting carefully 
enough, have therefore misunderstood it, and that some of you have not read 
the referred article at all.  To clarify: It is neither me nor the author of 
the article that has said misconceptions.  So there really is no point in 
arguing that blog entries would be unreliable.  In fact, the author explains 
*why* the listed statements are misconceptions about PHP, and I had found 
his reasoning rather logical.

I wanted to inform about this article, as I had found it enlightening.
I did not know that there are actually people hating PHP for various 
(dubious) reasons.  I hoped for a serious discussion about the arguments of 
the author, maybe the comments that followed, and other wrong ideas about 
PHP that could be clarified; really not a confirmation of what was written.


PointedEars
-- 
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web