At 05:02 AM 6/8/2002 +0100, Michael Dransfield wrote: >At 02:40 08/06/2002 +0100, you wrote: >> > There are two reasons we repeat the 'PHP is not Java mantra': >> > >> > (a) Many of those requesting these changes actually DO want to see PHP >> > as a Java with PHPish syntax. >> >>Anyone wanting PHP to be a "simple" or "more flexable" Java is barking up >>the wrong tree... in fact all of the people I know who Im lobbying "better >>OO functionality in PHP" for know Java and know PHP - and use both where >>each is best. What we are requesting is that PHP expands its OO >>capabilities - not change the way it does things, not do anything >>outlandish or "stolen" from another language. Think about it - all it >>would be is like adding an extra gear to a car. Wouldnt change the >>concept, the design or the idea of the car... not the make nor model... it >>would however give it added depth and use. > > >I agree completely, for what its worth ;) > >I have a question about this whole debate. > >If PHP's core goal is to provide easy quick development for 'dynamic >pages' , then why is there no built-in template engine? > >Having this would solve many of the niggling problems that are associated >with current PHP-written (OO) template engines. Is it that there is no >desire for such an extension?
Please read the archives on this issue because I wouldn't want yet another long thread to start on php-dev. Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
