> (From behind filing cabinet where I am ducking preparing for flames).
> Is it just me or is there anyone else that thinks PHP suffers 
> from not being modular.  

It is just you and some other people similar to you. Thought this
question was up for a while :-)

> PHP on the other hand seems to load in ALL the code that MAY 
> be run. i.e. an include brings things in which are inside an 
> if,  even if the if equates to false.

Is it really true? I always though it wasn't.
AFAIN: Long time ago require() was working this way. But now, require()
and include() are the same. Loaded only when needed.

> This means that the language is not extendible in the way 
> others are.  If you do write a function you wish to include 
> in 'only the pages you wish to use'  you have to first 
> include it, then call it.

Well, it has it's pluses and it's minuses, it is extendable, though OOD
works a little different in it. But hey, it compiles on the fly,
remember? That's a plus for developers, especially newbies.

> This has also meant that things like spell checking functions 
> are built into the core module rather than called in as or 
> when they are needed.
> Then there is the way database connectivity is handled.
> There are a load of functions (again in the core language) 
> with there NAMES containing the name of the database you are 
> connecting to.

OK, true. But, this is necessary if you want PHP to automatically
connect to different DBs. 
A plus to portability and a minus to... (to what?)

> For example all MySQL functions are mysql_something and I 
> guess all oracle ones are oracle_something.  This would only 
> be a minor inconvenience because wrapper functions can be 
> written but from what I can gather different databases have 
> different functionality available.

That is why Sascha Sunmann wrote PHPLIB and (Stig?) Bakken created PEAR
(released with every PHP distribution, btw - just waiting for you to use


> I know this is partly because different databases have 
> different functionality.  what I would expect to see is a 
> load of generic function which attempt to provide same 
> functionality where it is available or implement some of the 
> functionality themselves.  Obviously for some of the less 
> sophisticated databases these functions would have to do more 
> work and maybe some functionality wouldn't be available in 
> certain databases (but only the things like stored procedures).
> Got a nast feeling that ASP (spit) does something like this.
> You may cry, it cant be done.  however I remember a 
> connectivity product that came from Borland (this was back in 
> the Paradox Days) which did just this, it even had 
> transaction handling built into this connectivity layer for DBase!
> Anyway I am playing Devils Advocate.

We all play it once at least ;-)

> What I do like about PHP is how quickly it can be learnt and 
> how quick you can build apps with it.  Maybe this is at the 
> expense of elegance.  Maybe PHP5 will address these issues -;)

Isn't it the greatest thing of it?
Just think of this - where else you can become a programmer in a short
Compliling/executing/libraring/connecting just to make a simple
guestbook for your site.

> And there are certainly some very busy PHP sites, you should 
> see the traffic levels on indymedia.org during 
> anti-capitalist demonstrations and I am sure during the New 
> York attacks they went belistic.

Search archives for "php sites" or something like this. The topic comes
up every week or so :-)

Maxim Maletsky

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]

Reply via email to