Posted by "Richard Lynch" on 08/23/05 09:30

On Mon, August 22, 2005 12:03 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 14:16, Rick Emery wrote:
>>
>> "I read the following article and I wanted your feedback on it.
>> http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2002/papers/html/php/#section_6. I

I only read half-way through it...

His first thesis (Section 2, after the Intro) that PHP's strength
comes from co-mingling HTML and business logic has some merit...

But, really, you can make a mess of that equally well in ANY language.

Only a disciplined architecture and design will stop that.

Section 3
Since this section is based on FACTUALLY INCORRECT statements, it's
utter bullshit.

Re-defining a function in PHP generates an error.

The PHP class system provides distinct name-spaces for functions (and
more)

His entire these is un-tenable.

Section 4
Again, FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

Virtually *all* of the settings can be over-ridden in .htaccess,
and/or in PHP code itself.

At this point, I quit reading. It's clear the author has NO CLUE
about how PHP actually works.

When a guy writes a document that is all anti-PHP that is FACTUALLY
INCORRECT, why would you bother to use it for anything at all?

PS There are also several typos in the document, which never helps.

--
Like Music?
http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm

[Back to original message]