> Michael Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> I'm interested in the proposition made recently on this list that PHP is
> somehow a 'lightweight' language that some people don't take seriously. I
> am relatively new to Linux and open source programming and only really
> know PHP and some shell scripting, though I am now starting to explore
> Python.
Seems to me that most languages can be considered "lightweight" in some
respects. After all, couldn't C be considered lightweight compared with
machine code?
And then, most languages are written in something else (something
heavier?): if I remember correctly, Squeak is about the only thing that
really eats its own dog food. And, from what I remember, such recursion
wasn't straightforward!
It's really a silly discussion. PHP does what it does exceptionally
well. You'd be barking mad to write an operating system in it, but you'd
be equally crazy to write a C application to do what a shell script does
or to use Java to run a regex on a text file.
The reason, I think, that there are so many languages out there is that
each has its advantages when used in a particular context. It may be
able to work out of context, but the overheads in development and/or
compilation or run time build up.
--
******************************************************************************
Marx: "Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?"
Proudhon: "Because all proper tea is theft."
******************************************************************************
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
