Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #13625 > unrolled thread
| Started by | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-13 02:17 -0600 |
| Last post | 2014-05-13 17:26 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-13 02:17 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-05-13 10:37 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 11:52 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2014-05-13 13:28 +0000
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 10:29 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Collin Pruitt <hellow+newsgroup@binenv.com> - 2014-05-13 11:00 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-13 10:05 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2014-05-13 11:32 -0500
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:09 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 21:35 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-13 16:10 -0500
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 23:03 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-13 19:55 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-13 20:26 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-13 20:37 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:18 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 08:20 -0400
PHP Gui Toolkits (was: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-14 14:58 +0200
Re: PHP Gui Toolkits crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:04 -0600
Re: PHP Gui Toolkits Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-15 14:38 +0200
Re: PHP Gui Toolkits The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 13:59 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:01 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-14 06:40 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 08:23 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:00 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 14:49 -0500
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 02:44 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:17 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:39 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 12:29 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 14:54 -0500
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 21:50 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 22:49 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-15 09:45 -0500
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 17:35 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:07 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 07:58 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 09:55 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-15 08:08 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:04 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 04:42 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:21 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 12:32 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 13:39 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 15:23 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-14 20:00 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 21:48 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 22:18 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 23:10 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 22:05 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 23:07 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 22:51 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-05-15 12:34 +0000
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 14:52 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:13 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 17:48 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-16 01:12 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-05-16 11:29 +0000
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-16 13:03 +0100
PHP integers (was: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-16 14:16 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-15 10:03 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-15 16:26 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:07 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 17:37 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-15 19:14 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-16 02:45 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-16 09:25 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-16 09:14 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-16 01:17 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-05-15 19:33 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 02:36 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:09 +0100
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:58 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2014-05-13 21:23 +0000
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-13 19:02 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:24 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-14 17:23 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 22:53 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:13 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-15 06:09 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:16 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-05-15 18:49 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-05-16 12:02 +0000
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-16 08:17 -0600
init-system, bash, etc. (was: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-16 18:48 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-15 08:02 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-05-15 03:16 +0200
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-13 12:20 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2014-05-13 13:35 -0500
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-13 19:04 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:26 -0600
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 08:28 -0400
Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 17:26 +0100
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 13:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: PHP Gui Toolkits |
| Message-ID | <ll2dns$b85$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13715 |
On 15/05/14 13:38, Christoph Michael Becker wrote: > crankypuss wrote: > >> On 05/14/2014 06:58 AM, Christoph Michael Becker wrote: >> >>> It seems to me that PHPGTK[1] is dead; there is, however, wxPHP[2], >>> which seems to be actively developed. >>> >>> [1] <http://gtk.php.net/> >>> [2] <http://wxphp.org/> >> >> Thanks for posting that, wasn't aware of wxPHP. Have you investigated >> wxPHP? Comments? > > No, not really, due to lack of time and need. > I've known people who have spent years trying to make a hammer look like a screwdriver, too..;-) -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 02:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ll1s9c$uah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13675 |
On 05/14/2014 06:20 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/14/2014 5:18 AM, crankypuss wrote: <snip> >> Most of the whizbang flashies that are implemented as parts of "GUI" >> applications are unnecessary anyway if there is adequate support for a >> good menu system (which mostly, there isn't). And the idea of using a >> mouse for everything by dragging this or that icon from hither to yon, >> or double clicking on an icon, is an oversimplification imo that has >> caused grievous damage to the computing world as a whole. At the same >> time the ability to click on a link in html is one of its great >> benefits, and flyovers can be very helpful. >> > > Simplification is good. YOU may not like it, but hundreds of millions > of computer users do. And that's who these apps are designed for. Some folks are trying to make a living by writing software. As such they may tend toward the proprietary side of things. They need to choose a language that their corporate successors will be able to support. They need to choose a language in which they can get the job done on time. Their software needs to cater to the perceived user demographic. There are a lot of demands, sometimes conflicting demands, they have to resolve. That situation tends, at least in my experience, to be very constricting, one could almost say enslaving. There is however another situation, another point of view. Some of us have done the "employed as a programmer" thing and survived to lick our wounds and look around. We can do whatever we choose, however we like, and if nobody else likes it that's fine, it won't change our standard of living. I'm sure there are even more points of view, but the second one is where I'm coming from. As such, I tend to look at things somewhat differently than many/most. For example, I don't want to have to write different code for a web-app versus a local-app, and I don't want to have to write different code for an X-based app as opposed to an app that will run without an active X session. I could write assembler but long ago I got tired of porting code from architecture to architecture, I could write C or C++ but there are only a relative few kinds of code that require enough performance and precision to justify putting up with the syntax and limitations of those languages. One of the things I learned about software a long time ago is that there's no single answer, some answers are broken and others not, some work better or worse than others in some ways, but it isn't a YES/NO question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 06:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkvh74$pu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13654 |
Jerry Stuckle wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 5/13/2014 8:26 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >> Use what makes *you* feel productive. For me, that is currently C++, one of >> the most flexible languages ever. > > I agree it depends on the situation. But the language needs to be what > the JOB requires - not what makes you feel productive. > > Along with PHP, I also do C (almost 30 years), c++ (25 years), Java (10 > years) and other languages. The language I use is completely dependent > on the job. In other words, simply on someone's past decisions, for the most part. > For instance - C++ is nice, but doesn't work well with Linux Device > Drivers. You're better off using C for that. And it can't be as easily > modified and changed as PHP, which works great as a scripting language. > I would never, for instance, use C++ to do the SPAM email parsing and > updating; PHP has tools which making parsing emails easy, unlike C++. > But at the same time I would never try to write a GUI program in PHP. Every language, it seems, converges on the same large feature set and incorporates many third-party libraries to do various tasks. Even C++. Check out Boost sometime, and Qt. The big differences, I think, are in the infrastructure surrounding the languages. Java vs C++, for example. Anyway, I basically agree with you. -- A possum must be himself, and being himself he is honest. -- Walt Kelly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 08:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkvn7q$82e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13672 |
On 5/14/2014 6:40 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 5/13/2014 8:26 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>> Use what makes *you* feel productive. For me, that is currently C++, one of >>> the most flexible languages ever. >> >> I agree it depends on the situation. But the language needs to be what >> the JOB requires - not what makes you feel productive. >> >> Along with PHP, I also do C (almost 30 years), c++ (25 years), Java (10 >> years) and other languages. The language I use is completely dependent >> on the job. > > In other words, simply on someone's past decisions, for the most part. > Almost NEVER dependent on past decisions. But it IS dependent on the requirements of the program. >> For instance - C++ is nice, but doesn't work well with Linux Device >> Drivers. You're better off using C for that. And it can't be as easily >> modified and changed as PHP, which works great as a scripting language. >> I would never, for instance, use C++ to do the SPAM email parsing and >> updating; PHP has tools which making parsing emails easy, unlike C++. >> But at the same time I would never try to write a GUI program in PHP. > > Every language, it seems, converges on the same large feature set and > incorporates many third-party libraries to do various tasks. Even C++. > Check out Boost sometime, and Qt. > > The big differences, I think, are in the infrastructure surrounding the > languages. Java vs C++, for example. > > Anyway, I basically agree with you. > Yes, every language has its advantages and disadvantages. That's why there is no one "universal language". Different jobs have different requirements, and some languages are better than others for any particular job. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 03:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lkvbb4$uiq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13649 |
On 05/13/2014 04:03 PM, Tim Streater wrote: > In article <slrnln52i9.nki.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH > <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: <snip> >> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless >> otherwise. > > Depends what you're doing. My app has 74 PHP scripts, some of which do > things like communicate with remote hosts, rotate logs, move files > around, read/write a variety of SQLite databases. Doubtless all this > could be done in C, but why should I bother. On my netbook (which runs only linux) I have a number of applications that would be difficult to implement using the default scripting language because of its lack of facilities. For example, there is an upstart exit that runs during boot, checks to see if I've updated the kernel since it was last run, then modifies the Ubuntu logon graphic to include information like the label of the boot device, install date, and linux kernel version. I find it nice, given that I could have booted from any of several production or test partitions, to see as I am logging in that I've done what I intended. I've a nautilus extension that provides a bunch of functionality that is in use constantly. I've a "boot setup" utility that will do the configuration necessary to set up grub2 or extlinux as the boot program. I've a fullscreen backup utility that gets run at least once daily and enables me to perform a backup using either rsync or tar by entering fewer keystrokes than typing either command would require (and which lets me do that even when I'm half asleep). And some other stuff that would be "unmanageable" if I'd attempted to write it using the default scripting language, even if I were expert in using that crude "language", which I admittedly avoid becoming. The idea that PHP is "pointless" unless one is working with the web is one that I cannot agree with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 14:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnln7i65.40d.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #13649 |
On 2014-05-13, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnln52i9.nki.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-05-13, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In article <lktn4a$n8q$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
>> ><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 13/05/14 17:32, Johnny wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Linux Shell Scripting Tutorial v1.05r3
>> >> > A Beginner's handbook
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.freeos.com/guides/lsst/
>> >> Prezactly. PHP is optimised for HTML work really.
>> >
>> > Who cares.
>> >
>> >> There are far better languages to do other stuff in, though I have to
>> >> say I dislike scripting langauges really and prefer to use C wherever
>> >> possible.
>> >
>> > I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
>> > around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>> >
>> > Non-issues in PHP.
>>
>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless otherwise.
>
> Depends what you're doing. My app has 74 PHP scripts, some of which do
> things like communicate with remote hosts, rotate logs, move files
> around, read/write a variety of SQLite databases. Doubtless all this
> could be done in C, but why should I bother.
>
That's a false dichotomy there: C or PHP.
--
Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful. |||
/ | \
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 02:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lkvae4$op6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13648 |
On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless otherwise. I find that to be absolutely not the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 10:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lkvcbl$htp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13661 |
On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote: > On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless >> otherwise. > > I find that to be absolutely not the case. but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view. PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language. And its HUGE advantage over - say C - is the ability to slip in and out of pure HTML with a ?> <? statement. Apart from that its relatively crap. IIRC C++ has some similar features as has PERL. But the support for other handy stuff is not as good. *shrug*. in teh end its a minir detail tha wins te day. C has the best interface to the operating system, PHP has the best user interface to HTML and if I was writing a native app for linux I'd probably use C++ as the interface to x windwows is easier that way. as far as scripts go, well its a totally undemanding application. Any crud will work. Even PERL. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 03:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lkvdjf$c13$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13664 |
On 05/14/2014 03:17 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote: >> On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless >>> otherwise. >> >> I find that to be absolutely not the case. > > but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view. Yes, and more than a few of those seem to think they're defending their virgin sister against a potential rapist, rather than discussing languages and applications and potentialities. > PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things > perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one > advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language. Inertia is powerful stuff. > And its HUGE advantage over - say C - is the ability to slip in and out > of pure HTML with a ?> <? statement. We have different views here, from what I can tell; you seem to view HTML as the objective with PHP as a relatively minor facilitator, while I view the overall "web application" (which every website is, if you look at it from that pov) as the objective and HTML as an interface language to be used by the application implementation... more ideally I see HTML as one possible interface language used by a higher-level application whose logic applies equally whether it is a web-based or local implementation. > Apart from that its relatively crap. I could complain about PHP's inconsistencies for a long time, but I'd prefer to use the time more usefully. > IIRC C++ has some similar features as has PERL. > > But the support for other handy stuff is not as good. > > *shrug*. > > in teh end its a minir detail tha wins te day. > > C has the best interface to the operating system, PHP has the best user > interface to HTML and if I was writing a native app for linux I'd > probably use C++ as the interface to x windwows is easier that way. > > as far as scripts go, well its a totally undemanding application. Any > crud will work. Even PERL. I think we may be working with different meanings for the word "script".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 12:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <140520141229311237%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #13664 |
In article <lkvcbl$htp$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > C has the best interface to the operating system, PHP has the best user > interface to HTML ... In the sense that most APIs interface to C, yes. But one thing about PHP is the large amount of libraries available to do things, without which it wouldn't be much use at all. -- "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 14:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnln7ift.40d.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #13664 |
On 2014-05-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote:
>> On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> I find that to be absolutely not the case.
>
> but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view.
>
> PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things
> perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one
> advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language.
As a tool for C avoidance, PHP is a bit of a johnny-come-lately.
If that's all you're really interested in, then there are plenty of
more well established options with whatever bells and whistles you're
interested in.
C vs. PHP is just such a weird dichotomy because pure C is so
ancient and PHP is kind of not (and thus somewhat redundant).
On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being
the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a
security disaster.
[deletia]
--
Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful. |||
/ | \
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ll0kua$6rr$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13683 |
On 14/05/14 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2014-05-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote: >>> On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless >>>> otherwise. >>> >>> I find that to be absolutely not the case. >> >> but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view. >> >> PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things >> perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one >> advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language. > > As a tool for C avoidance, PHP is a bit of a johnny-come-lately. > If that's all you're really interested in, then there are plenty of > more well established options with whatever bells and whistles you're > interested in. > > C vs. PHP is just such a weird dichotomy because pure C is so > ancient and PHP is kind of not (and thus somewhat redundant). > C is still the language that fits everything. > On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being > the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a > security disaster. > sendmail wasn't a security disaster if you set it up OK and bind - well I've never had a problem Nor with PHP either Juts be carefiul how you use it. > [deletia] > -- 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]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 22:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll19vq$8tm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13687 |
On 5/14/2014 4:50 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 14/05/14 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2014-05-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote: >>>> On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless >>>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> I find that to be absolutely not the case. >>> >>> but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view. >>> >>> PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things >>> perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one >>> advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language. >> >> As a tool for C avoidance, PHP is a bit of a johnny-come-lately. >> If that's all you're really interested in, then there are plenty of >> more well established options with whatever bells and whistles you're >> interested in. >> >> C vs. PHP is just such a weird dichotomy because pure C is so >> ancient and PHP is kind of not (and thus somewhat redundant). >> > > C is still the language that fits everything. > Anyone who thinks "C" is "the language that fits everything" doesn't know much about programming. If "C" were so great, why are there so many other languages? >> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being >> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a >> security disaster. >> > > sendmail wasn't a security disaster if you set it up OK and bind - well > I've never had a problem > Nope, it isn't a security disaster if you don't use it. > Nor with PHP either > > Juts be carefiul how you use it. > >> [deletia] >> > > -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 09:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnln9kok.mbc.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #13701 |
On 2014-05-15, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/14/2014 4:50 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 14/05/14 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote:
>>>>> On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find that to be absolutely not the case.
>>>>
>>>> but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view.
>>>>
>>>> PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things
>>>> perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one
>>>> advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language.
>>>
>>> As a tool for C avoidance, PHP is a bit of a johnny-come-lately.
>>> If that's all you're really interested in, then there are plenty of
>>> more well established options with whatever bells and whistles you're
[deletia]
>>> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being
>>> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a
>>> security disaster.
>>>
>>
>> sendmail wasn't a security disaster if you set it up OK and bind - well
>> I've never had a problem
"if you set it up OK"
Well that's the problem right there. Sendmail was/is a complex and powerful
beast with a large number of features that were irrelevant to people 10 or 15
years ago. Nevermind now. It was overkill in most use cases and it's flexibility
a source of problems.
Something simpler and better tailored is less likely to be set up wrong.
>>
>
> Nope, it isn't a security disaster if you don't use it.
>
>> Nor with PHP either
>>
>> Juts be carefiul how you use it.
The problem is that lots of people aren't. Then they distribute
their work widely to people in no position to clean up after them.
--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 17:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ll2qcs$645$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13720 |
On 15/05/14 15:45, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2014-05-15, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >> On 5/14/2014 4:50 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 14/05/14 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2014-05-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/14 09:44, crankypuss wrote: >>>>>> On 05/13/2014 03:10 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>>>> PHP is fine if you're working with the web, kind of pointless >>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> I find that to be absolutely not the case. >>>>> >>>>> but others don't. They take a personal and opposite view. >>>>> >>>>> PHP CAN be used for other things. But most of us were dong other things >>>>> perfectly well before we discovered PHP and for us PHP only has one >>>>> advantage: its widely supported as a web scripting language. >>>> >>>> As a tool for C avoidance, PHP is a bit of a johnny-come-lately. >>>> If that's all you're really interested in, then there are plenty of >>>> more well established options with whatever bells and whistles you're > > [deletia] > >>>> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being >>>> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a >>>> security disaster. >>>> >>> >>> sendmail wasn't a security disaster if you set it up OK and bind - well >>> I've never had a problem > > "if you set it up OK" > > Well that's the problem right there. Sendmail was/is a complex and powerful > beast with a large number of features that were irrelevant to people 10 or 15 > years ago. Nevermind now. It was overkill in most use cases and it's flexibility > a source of problems. > ah well. I was probably the no 1 expert in setting it up. totally threw away the stock config fle and wrote one from scratch. All table driven. > Something simpler and better tailored is less likely to be set up wrong. > >>> >> >> Nope, it isn't a security disaster if you don't use it. >> >>> Nor with PHP either >>> >>> Juts be carefiul how you use it. > > The problem is that lots of people aren't. Then they distribute > their work widely to people in no position to clean up after them. > -- 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]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 02:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ll1sj6$uah$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13683 |
On 05/14/2014 01:54 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being > the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a > security disaster. I think that's mostly because of builtin session support and its tendency to be used for mySQL queries that occur clear-text in the url.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 07:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll2a5i$jvo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13707 |
crankypuss wrote: > On 05/14/2014 01:54 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being >> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a >> security disaster. > > I think that's mostly because of builtin session support and its > tendency to be used for mySQL queries that occur clear-text in the url. That is not the language fault but the "programmer". Some frameworks are just garbage and the bozo factor is language independent. Some of the first wide spread SQL injections occurred with ASP. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 09:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ll2o1s$npi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13711 |
On 05/15/2014 05:58 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: > crankypuss wrote: >> On 05/14/2014 01:54 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being >>> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a >>> security disaster. >> >> I think that's mostly because of builtin session support and its >> tendency to be used for mySQL queries that occur clear-text in the url. > > That is not the language fault but the "programmer". Some frameworks > are just garbage and the bozo factor is language independent. Some of > the first wide spread SQL injections occurred with ASP. > Yes, I agree, and thought that was obvious; sorry I was unclear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 08:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll2ao0$o7s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13707 |
On 5/15/2014 4:07 AM, crankypuss wrote: > On 05/14/2014 01:54 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being >> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a >> security disaster. > > I think that's mostly because of builtin session support and its > tendency to be used for mySQL queries that occur clear-text in the url. I have to disagree here. Languages are neither secure nor insecure. Programs are, though. I think it's more because there are too many people like TNP who call themselves "programmers" but have no business being near a computer. PHP is a relatively easy language to learn, but like any language, you have to know what you're doing to write secure code. Too many people stop learning before they get to that point. That's a great part of what quality control and testing is about - not only feeding the code good input to ensure it responds correctly, but also feeding it bad input to ensure the code rejects it properly. But way too many people only check responses to "good" data, and don't ensure "bad" data is properly rejected. The result is things like SQL injection and other security issues. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 10:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ll2oif$sas$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13712 |
On 05/15/2014 06:08 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/15/2014 4:07 AM, crankypuss wrote: >> On 05/14/2014 01:54 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On the other hand, PHP has gained itself a reputation for being >>> the modern day equivalent of Sendmail or BIND in terms of being a >>> security disaster. >> >> I think that's mostly because of builtin session support and its >> tendency to be used for mySQL queries that occur clear-text in the url. > > I have to disagree here. Languages are neither secure nor insecure. > Programs are, though. > > I think it's more because there are too many people like TNP who call > themselves "programmers" but have no business being near a computer. PHP > is a relatively easy language to learn, but like any language, you have > to know what you're doing to write secure code. Too many people stop > learning before they get to that point. > > That's a great part of what quality control and testing is about - not > only feeding the code good input to ensure it responds correctly, but > also feeding it bad input to ensure the code rejects it properly. > > But way too many people only check responses to "good" data, and don't > ensure "bad" data is properly rejected. The result is things like SQL > injection and other security issues. > See what I get for being unclear? <g> See my reply to JNL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web