2007/11/17, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > But why not have maximum flexibility? A language should provide as many > tools to the user as possible, a tool doesn't hurt. If you don't want to > do it, don't, who cares? But an extra tool never hurts in any situation, > real life or a programming language. Any language and any features of a > language can be abused horribly by someone who doesn't know what they're > doing. >
I disagree. A new tool is only more trouble if there's already a more elegant way to solve the problem. If you ever worked on a big project which uses perl for some parts of the processing, you'll know what I mean. There can't be any actual teamwork if every damn perl programmer writes the same code in a different way. And don't even try imposing some coding convention, they will just argue for days which and why is the more elegant way to code anything, even a damn if branch! 2007/11/17, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Flexibility does not hurt anyone except the people who abuse it. If > they're going to make mistakes like this, they're going to make mistakes > regardless. We don't have to hold back new features and flexibiltiy in > order to prevent a couple of people from messing up. If everyone went by > this logic then PHP would not even have functions, because people might > use them wrongly. > I highly recommend reading Murphy's Law. There is a whole section on software development that will enlighten you. 2007/11/17, Sam Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You say that superglobals were not designed to be user defined, think > about it, the concept of a superglobal is present in C and C++, two of > the maturest and strictest languages around. I have a specially crafted bat that's only for teaching coders that they should not use globals in C/C++ (specially C++). I ordered another one for PHP coders, but had to send it back to be adjusted (compatibility problems with PHP5).
