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

Groups > comp.lang.php > #6958 > unrolled thread

Never log deprecation warnings

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

Contents

  Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-06 11:51 +0200
    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-06 09:10 -0400
      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-06 15:42 +0200
        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-06 11:26 -0400
    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-06 15:48 +0200
      Re: Never log deprecation warnings "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2012-09-06 18:04 +0200
        Re: Never log deprecation warnings The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-06 17:33 +0100
          Re: Never log deprecation warnings Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2012-09-06 10:37 -0700
            Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-06 19:49 +0200
              Re: Never log deprecation warnings The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-06 18:56 +0100
                Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-06 21:53 +0200
          Re: Never log deprecation warnings "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2012-09-06 20:41 +0200
            Re: Never log deprecation warnings The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-06 19:52 +0100
    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 19:59 +0000
      Re: Never log deprecation warnings The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-06 23:34 +0100
    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-07 00:53 +0200
      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-06 20:09 -0400
      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2012-09-06 18:41 -0700
        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-10 12:43 +0200
          Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-10 07:43 -0400
            Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-11 10:38 +0200
              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-11 08:34 -0400
                Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-11 15:06 +0200
                  Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-11 09:32 -0400
                    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-11 21:53 +0200
                      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-11 16:16 -0400
                        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-13 11:31 +0200
                          Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 13:01 -0400
                            Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jonathan Stein <jstein@image.dk> - 2012-09-13 21:33 +0200
                              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 20:08 -0400
                                Re: Never log deprecation warnings Michael Fesser <netizen@gmx.de> - 2012-09-14 15:41 +0200
                      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2012-09-12 02:28 +0200
                        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-11 21:08 -0400
              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-12 01:16 +0200
                Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-11 20:18 -0400
                  Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-12 12:09 +0200
                    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-12 08:26 -0400
                      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-12 15:42 +0200
                        Re: Never log deprecation warnings The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-12 15:07 +0100
                        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-12 12:08 -0400
                          Re: Never log deprecation warnings Shake <QUITAESTO@QUITAESTO.NOES> - 2012-09-12 18:13 +0200
                            Re: Never log deprecation warnings The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-12 17:28 +0100
                              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Shake <QUITAESTO@QUITAESTO.NOES> - 2012-09-12 18:37 +0200
                            Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-12 15:01 -0400
                              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-12 21:35 +0200
                                Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 12:53 -0400
                              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Shake <alex.estevezQUENO@QUENOfilnet.es> - 2012-09-12 21:39 +0200
                                Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 12:55 -0400
                                  Re: Never log deprecation warnings Shake <QUITAESTO@QUITAESTO.NOES> - 2012-09-13 19:24 +0200
                                    Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 15:02 -0400
                                      Re: Never log deprecation warnings Shake <QUITAESTO@QUITAESTO.NOES> - 2012-09-13 21:12 +0200
                                        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-13 22:20 +0200
                                          Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 20:13 -0400
                                        Re: Never log deprecation warnings Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-09-13 20:10 -0400
                              Re: Never log deprecation warnings Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-09-12 23:13 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#7001

On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.

Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new 
projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?

> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?

Why take something down when it works and people are using it?

(And deprecated functions doesn't just vanish - we know when we upgrade 
to a new PHP version).

   Regards

     Jonathan

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

#7002

On 9/11/2012 4:38 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>
> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>

Whichever ones are not as important as one that's being used.

>> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
>> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
>
> Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
>
> (And deprecated functions doesn't just vanish - we know when we upgrade
> to a new PHP version).
>
>    Regards
>
>      Jonathan
>

Because sooner or later you will have to upgrade or run with a no longer 
supported version of PHP - which includes security fixes, leaving your 
site open to all kinds of problems.

And when you do upgrade, your site will break and your site will be done 
- creating a mad frenzy trying to make a lot of quick fixes to get it 
going again.  And that just adds more bugs.

The deprecated warnings are there for a reason - to give you time to fix 
problems before they occur.  To ignore them is the ultimate in stupidity.


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

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

#7004

On 11-09-2012 14:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>
>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>
> Whichever ones are not as important as one that's being used.

In my opinion, all our newer projects are more important, so please give 
me your opinion. You must have considered this, since you can conclude 
that "To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity".

>>> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
>>> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
>>
>> Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
>
> Because sooner or later you will have to upgrade or run with a no longer
> supported version of PHP - which includes security fixes, leaving your
> site open to all kinds of problems.

But why take it down NOW?

> The deprecated warnings are there for a reason

- and there is a reason why you can filter out deprecation warnings as a 
separate group.

> To ignore them is the ultimate in stupidity.

Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We 
have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.

To spend resources on an old site that is hardly used anymore would be 
more stupid in my world, but of course, if you have unlimited resources, 
you can do everything...

   Regards

     Jonathan

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

#7005

On 9/11/2012 9:06 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 11-09-2012 14:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>>
>> Whichever ones are not as important as one that's being used.
>
> In my opinion, all our newer projects are more important, so please give
> me your opinion. You must have considered this, since you can conclude
> that "To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity".
>

Yes, in over 40 years of programming, I've seen lots of people with your 
attitude, both single programmers and groups in corporate environments. 
  And without exception, every one of them has crashed and burned, 
eventually.

You are not only ignoring the errors, you are trying to hide them.  In a 
year or two, you'll get to the point you have to upgrade PHP, i.e. some 
new feature that was added or because the old version isn't supported 
any more.  At that point you'll have forgotten all about your 
deprecation errors and your site(s) will break.  And then it will be a 
mad rush to try to install quick fixes to get it back up and running 
again.  And that will just add more bugs.

>>>> If the site isn't that important, then just why not just take it down
>>>> now instead of waiting for it to crash hard?
>>>
>>> Why take something down when it works and people are using it?
>>
>> Because sooner or later you will have to upgrade or run with a no longer
>> supported version of PHP - which includes security fixes, leaving your
>> site open to all kinds of problems.
>
> But why take it down NOW?
>

To save your clients the problem of it suddenly crashing later.

>> The deprecated warnings are there for a reason
>
> - and there is a reason why you can filter out deprecation warnings as a
> separate group.
>

Which is NOT so you can ignore them!

>> To ignore them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>
> Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
> have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
>

Yes it is.  Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"?  If you don't see 
the warnings, you WILL forget about them.

> To spend resources on an old site that is hardly used anymore would be
> more stupid in my world, but of course, if you have unlimited resources,
> you can do everything...
>
>    Regards
>
>      Jonathan
>

Then just take the site down and forget about it.  If it isn't important 
enough to fix before it breaks, then it's not important enough to keep 
going.

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

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

#7010

On 11-09-2012 15:32, Jerry wrote:

> You are not only ignoring the errors, you are trying to hide them.  In a
> year or two, you'll get to the point you have to upgrade PHP, i.e. some
> new feature that was added or because the old version isn't supported
> any more.  At that point you'll have forgotten all about your
> deprecation errors and your site(s) will break.

I won't state that this could not happen for us, but I'm pretty sure 
that deprecated functions won't disappear in a minor service update. 
(And we wouldn't do a major version upgrade without a little more testing).

However, there are many other things that could break a "minimalistic" 
maintained site, and that's a risk we have considered.

It's not so graceful, but the few users can keep the sites a little 
longer. That's our trade off.

>> But why take it down NOW?
>
> To save your clients the problem of it suddenly crashing later.

The problems if the sites crash tomorrow are not bigger than if we shot 
down the sites today...

>> Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
>> have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
>
> Yes it is.  Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"?  If you don't see
> the warnings, you WILL forget about them.

If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6, I'm 
sure we'll test with all our sites. If the functions disappear earlier, 
the old sites might crash (and then see above).


You - finally - had some good arguments, but they are not valid in this 
particular case. That's the danger of skipping the analysis and jumping 
directly to the conclusion.

So next time why not start with the arguments and let the poster draw 
the conclusions?

   Regards

     Jonathan

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

#7011

On 9/11/2012 3:53 PM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 11-09-2012 15:32, Jerry wrote:
>
>> You are not only ignoring the errors, you are trying to hide them.  In a
>> year or two, you'll get to the point you have to upgrade PHP, i.e. some
>> new feature that was added or because the old version isn't supported
>> any more.  At that point you'll have forgotten all about your
>> deprecation errors and your site(s) will break.
>
> I won't state that this could not happen for us, but I'm pretty sure
> that deprecated functions won't disappear in a minor service update.
> (And we wouldn't do a major version upgrade without a little more testing).
>
> However, there are many other things that could break a "minimalistic"
> maintained site, and that's a risk we have considered.
>
> It's not so graceful, but the few users can keep the sites a little
> longer. That's our trade off.
>
>>> But why take it down NOW?
>>
>> To save your clients the problem of it suddenly crashing later.
>
> The problems if the sites crash tomorrow are not bigger than if we shot
> down the sites today...
>
>>> Not to log the warnings are not the same as ignoring the problem. We
>>> have weighted pros and cons and made a decision.
>>
>> Yes it is.  Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"?  If you don't see
>> the warnings, you WILL forget about them.
>
> If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6, I'm
> sure we'll test with all our sites. If the functions disappear earlier,
> the old sites might crash (and then see above).
>
>
> You - finally - had some good arguments, but they are not valid in this
> particular case. That's the danger of skipping the analysis and jumping
> directly to the conclusion.
>
> So next time why not start with the arguments and let the poster draw
> the conclusions?
>
>    Regards
>
>      Jonathan
>

I figured you had enough experience to understand the conclusion.  I see 
I was wrong.

And, every one of the people/groups I've seen crash and burn have 
promised "it won't happen to us".  But it did.


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

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

#7035

On 11-09-2012 22:16, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> I figured you had enough experience to understand the conclusion.  I see
> I was wrong.

Everyone with the experience to understand your conclusions could have 
drawn the conclusions by them selfs, so they are pretty useless without 
any further explanation.

And when you present a conclusion, that is only valid in some cases as a 
universal truth, it's directly misleading.

> And, every one of the people/groups I've seen crash and burn have
> promised "it won't happen to us".  But it did.

I have noticed, that you don't accept the idea, that a site can be 
useful as it is, but not important enough to keep alive forever, so I 
don't think this will lead much further.
But at least you got a new experience this time: I said that it WILL 
happen. Our sites WILL stop working at some day. We know that, and we 
have accepted that.

   Regards

     Jonathan

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

#7045

On 9/13/2012 5:31 AM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 11-09-2012 22:16, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> I figured you had enough experience to understand the conclusion.  I see
>> I was wrong.
>
> Everyone with the experience to understand your conclusions could have
> drawn the conclusions by them selfs, so they are pretty useless without
> any further explanation.
>
> And when you present a conclusion, that is only valid in some cases as a
> universal truth, it's directly misleading.
>
>> And, every one of the people/groups I've seen crash and burn have
>> promised "it won't happen to us".  But it did.
>
> I have noticed, that you don't accept the idea, that a site can be
> useful as it is, but not important enough to keep alive forever, so I
> don't think this will lead much further.
> But at least you got a new experience this time: I said that it WILL
> happen. Our sites WILL stop working at some day. We know that, and we
> have accepted that.
>
>    Regards
>
>      Jonathan
>

Sure, I accept the idea the site can be useful.  But it's obviously not 
important or you would fix the warnings.  So why waste any other 
resources on it?  Just get rid of it.

And BTW - when you do get ready to go to a new release of PHP, you'll 
have a lot of work ahead of you in testing and validating the code. 
Having to go back and fix warnings you should have fixed months or years 
ago will just add to that workload, delaying the implementation even longer.

And no, it's not a new experience.  Every one of the projects I've seen 
who ignored the warnings have said exactly the same things you're saying 
- including the fact the code "WILL stop working"... But when that 
happened, the code all of a sudden becomes more important and can't be 
dropped so easily.

OTOH, those who have taken the time to fix the warnings long before the 
upgrade have had a much easier time.


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

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

#7051

On 13-09-2012 19:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>> I have noticed, that you don't accept the idea, that a site can be
>> useful as it is, but not important enough to keep alive forever, ...
>
> Sure, I accept the idea the site can be useful.  But it's obviously not
> important or you would fix the warnings.  So why waste any other
> resources on it?  Just get rid of it.

Did you just want to prove my point, or is this a competition about 
about writing the last message in the thread? - If so, you can win by 
answering this message...

   Regards

     Jonathan

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

#7053

On 9/13/2012 3:33 PM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
> On 13-09-2012 19:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>> I have noticed, that you don't accept the idea, that a site can be
>>> useful as it is, but not important enough to keep alive forever, ...
>>
>> Sure, I accept the idea the site can be useful.  But it's obviously not
>> important or you would fix the warnings.  So why waste any other
>> resources on it?  Just get rid of it.
>
> Did you just want to prove my point, or is this a competition about
> about writing the last message in the thread? - If so, you can win by
> answering this message...
>
>    Regards
>
>      Jonathan
>

No, I'm trying to "prove your point".  I'm just saying I've heard EVERY 
argument you've made before.  And every time it's been crash and burn.

But some people refuse to learn from others mistakes.  They need to make 
those same mistakes for themselves.

I pity your clients.

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

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

#7063

.oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>On 9/13/2012 3:33 PM, Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> Did you just want to prove my point, or is this a competition about
>> about writing the last message in the thread? - If so, you can win by
>> answering this message...
>
>No, I'm trying to "prove your point". [...]

We have a winner!

Micha

-- 
http://mfesser.de/
Fotos | Blog | Flohmarkt

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

#7015

Jonathan Stein wrote:
> If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6

AFAIK finally the release of PHP 6 was scheduled: it will be released on
the day, when pigs can fly ;-) (FWIW: in Germany this day is called "St.
Nimmerlein")

To avoid misunderstandings: IMO fixing deprecated warnings should have a
high priority -- *high*, but not highest.  I can understand Jonathan's
arguments, and perhaps it will help to add something in the line of the
following to the code:

if (!function_exists('...')) {
    die('Sorry, this service isn't available anymore!');
}

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#7016

On 9/11/2012 8:28 PM, Christoph Becker wrote:
> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>> If the sites live to the day where we decide to upgrade to PHP 6
>
> AFAIK finally the release of PHP 6 was scheduled: it will be released on
> the day, when pigs can fly ;-) (FWIW: in Germany this day is called "St.
> Nimmerlein")
>
> To avoid misunderstandings: IMO fixing deprecated warnings should have a
> high priority -- *high*, but not highest.  I can understand Jonathan's
> arguments, and perhaps it will help to add something in the line of the
> following to the code:
>
> if (!function_exists('...')) {
>      die('Sorry, this service isn't available anymore!');
> }
>

No, PHP6 will be out, but there has never been a release date scheduled 
for it.  There are still major issues with unicode support, which are 
delaying things.  Meanwhile, they've made a few of the changes in 5.4, 
which allowed them some room.

As for your suggestion - sure, you could do that - but it should be just 
as easy to fix the actual problem the first time and not have to worry 
about it a second time.

I've always considered deprecated warnings to be relatively high 
priority - definitely above E_NOTICE warnings (which I also get rid of), 
but lower than fatal errors.  After all - a deprecated warning is just a 
fatal error in waiting.

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

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

#7013

Jonathan Stein wrote:

> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
> 
> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?

If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those* 
warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace 
operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are 
specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone even 
has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why don't you 
write one, and save everyone your whining here?


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

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

#7014

On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>
>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>
>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>
> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
> operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone even
> has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why don't you
> write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>
>
> PointedEars
>

Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for 
trouble!  But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.

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

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

#7019

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>>
>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>> operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone
>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why
>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
> 
> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
> trouble!  But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.

You are projecting.  It would _not_ be done *blindly*.


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] | [next] | [standalone]

#7020

On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which new
>>>> projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old sites?
>>>
>>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>> operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone
>>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why
>>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>
>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>> trouble!  But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>
> You are projecting.  It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>
>
> PointedEars
>


"...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace 
operations;... "

Blindly searching and replacing.  You said it, I didn't.


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

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

#7022

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which
>>>>> new projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old
>>>>> sites?
>>>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>>> operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone
>>>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why
>>>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>>> trouble!  But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>> You are projecting.  It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
> 
> "...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
> operations;... "
> 
> Blindly searching and replacing.  You said it, I didn't.

You are misconstruing what I said, unsurprisingly.


PointedEars
-- 
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).

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

#7023

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 
>> On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which
>>>>>> new projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old
>>>>>> sites?
>>>>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>>>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>>>> operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>>>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone
>>>>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why
>>>>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>>>> trouble!  But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>>> You are projecting.  It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>> "...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>> operations;... "
>>
>> Blindly searching and replacing.  You said it, I didn't.
> 
> You are misconstruing what I said, unsurprisingly.
> 
Its Jerry double think. He blindly searches and replaces things in other 
peoples  posts in order that what he claims they posted then supports 
his pathetic attempts at ego enhancement and probably penis extension.. 
for all I know

The kindest thing to do is pretend you simply didn't notice.


> 
> PointedEars


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

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

#7024

On 9/12/2012 9:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2012 6:09 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2012 7:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Jonathan Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-09-2012 13:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>> To not fix them is the ultimate in stupidity.
>>>>>> Thank you for your insightful analysis. Could you also tell me which
>>>>>> new projects, we should drop to get resources to maintain these old
>>>>>> sites?
>>>>> If the rest of the code is not complete junk, getting rid of *those*
>>>>> warnings requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>>>>> operations; BTDT.  Which can be done in PHP of course, but there are
>>>>> specialized tools (any decent text editor can do that).  Maybe someone
>>>>> even has written a PHP 5.2 to 5.3 converter already.  And if not, why
>>>>> don't you write one, and save everyone your whining here?
>>>> Blindly changing code with search and replace is a major invitation for
>>>> trouble!  But then it's exactly what I would expect YOU would do.
>>> You are projecting.  It would _not_ be done *blindly*.
>>
>> "...requires nothing more than a few regex search-and-replace
>> operations;... "
>>
>> Blindly searching and replacing.  You said it, I didn't.
>
> You are misconstruing what I said, unsurprisingly.
>
>
> PointedEars
>

Just quoting what you said.  If that is not what you meant, you should 
be more careful with your words.  You said them, I didn't.

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

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web