On 3/13/08, Andrés Robinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry dude, RoR is still an academic toy.
Wrong.
I've worked with a team of 12 or so Ruby/Rails developers rewriting a
Java/Oracle electronic medical record to use Rails/PostgreSQL instead.
Hundreds of tables in a real-life app for real-world
Robert Cummings wrote:
It works like follows...
- $z asserts $a or claims $b
- $y disagrees with $a or $b or both and responds with rebuttal $h
and makes claims $c, $d, sometimes $e
- $z responds with rebuttal $i and often asserts a few other things
that well call $f, $g
2008. 03. 14, péntek keltezéssel 08.52-kor Aschwin Wesselius ezt írta:
Robert Cummings wrote:
It works like follows...
- $z asserts $a or claims $b
- $y disagrees with $a or $b or both and responds with rebuttal $h
and makes claims $c, $d, sometimes $e
- $z responds
tedd wrote:
At 9:19 PM -0400 3/13/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
- $z asserts $a or claims $b
- $y disagrees with $a or $b or both and responds with rebuttal $h
and makes claims $c, $d, sometimes $e
- $z responds with rebuttal $i and often asserts a few other things
that
At 9:19 PM -0400 3/13/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
- $z asserts $a or claims $b
- $y disagrees with $a or $b or both and responds with rebuttal $h
and makes claims $c, $d, sometimes $e
- $z responds with rebuttal $i and often asserts a few other things
that well call $f, $g
At 4:24 PM +0100 3/14/08, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 9:19 PM -0400 3/13/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
- $SJHSKJ mentions Nazis
Aha, you lose. You were the first to mention Nazis. :-)
Hey, at least I've learned something today. I thought he was joking
about Godwin's Law and
On 3/12/08, Ray Hauge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You
come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better?
No dumbass, I have already been here for a long time:
http://marc.info/?l=php-generalm=95331489301933w=2
And I didn't proclaim anything, Rob did:
snip
But then you'd end up with
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 10:02 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Ray Hauge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You
come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better?
No dumbass, I have already been here for a long time:
http://marc.info/?l=php-generalm=95331489301933w=2
And I didn't
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/12/08, Ray Hauge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You
come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better?
No dumbass, I have already been here for a long time:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Ray Hauge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You
come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better?
No dumbass, I have already been here for a long time:
This is my last post on this thread. It's obvious nobody is going to
convince anyone else of their being
On 3/13/08, Eric Butera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruby must really increase your work performance as you seem to have so
much free time to troll here. Awesome! :)
Ruby on Rails is really amazing in how fast you can put an app
together. There are generators for most everything so whipping up
On 3/13/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because PHP is the dog and Ruby is the cat?
Yeah, I guess. I have several cats. Indeed they are fast, sleek, and
smart just like Ruby.
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe,
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 14:36 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/13/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because PHP is the dog and Ruby is the cat?
Yeah, I guess. I have several cats. Indeed they are fast, sleek, and
smart just like Ruby.
So... there we have it everyone... Greg
On 3/13/08, Ray Hauge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my last post on this thread.
I doubt that, but feel free to prove me wrong.
The point of this reply is I didn't say anything about how long you've
been around here. The fact is you're still here, and we're talking PHP.
You said You
On 3/13/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So... there we have it everyone... Greg has admitted that Ruby is as
smart as a cat.
Hahaha.. yeah, you really got me on that one.
/me slaps his knee.
I like something a little more edgy personally. Something closer to human...
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 15:17 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/13/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So... there we have it everyone... Greg has admitted that Ruby is as
smart as a cat.
Hahaha.. yeah, you really got me on that one.
/me slaps his knee.
I like something
Are you talking about Ruby-On-Rails, which is a framework, or about Ruby?
Well, to point out my view, I have to admit that PHP is not really good
written. In some functions the needle is the first argument, second the
haystack and vise-versa in other functions.
And talk about OOP with PHP,
-Original Message-
From: Greg Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:17 PM
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
On 3/13/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So... there we have it everyone... Greg
Andrés Robinet wrote:
why don't you show us your
PHP work instead? Maybe you like RoR more because you suck at PHP.
Regards,
Rob
Hi, can somebody please point out something to me? Did I miss something?
Is there some initiation needed on this list which I've missed?
How come it is
On Thursday 13 March 2008 22:39:51 Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
Andrés Robinet wrote:
why don't you show us your
PHP work instead? Maybe you like RoR more because you suck at PHP.
Regards,
Rob
Hi, can somebody please point out something to me? Did I miss something?
Is there some
Oh, I get it.
Thank you!
On Wednesday 12 March 2008 15:26:01 Richard Heyes wrote:
I'm wondering what's wrong with the use of __autoload(), since I see that
projects like the Zend Framework don't use it and prefer to require_once
each required file.
Things that happen without you
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 22:39 +0100, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
Andrés Robinet wrote:
why don't you show us your
PHP work instead? Maybe you like RoR more because you suck at PHP.
Regards,
Rob
Hi, can somebody please point out something to me? Did I miss something?
Is there some
I'm wondering what's wrong with the use of __autoload(), since I see that
projects like the Zend Framework don't use it and prefer to require_once
each required file.
Things that happen without you explicitly causing them (ie require() et
al) can lead to confusion.
For example a junior
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering what's wrong with the use of __autoload(), since I see that
projects like the Zend Framework don't use it and prefer to require_once
each required file.
Things that happen without you explicitly causing them (ie require()
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 10:33 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering what's wrong with the use of __autoload(), since I see that
projects like the Zend Framework don't use it and prefer to require_once
each required file.
Things
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all
know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*.
You clearly don't know much about it or else you wouldn't be bashing
it. Period. Just admit the fact that you're resistant to learn
For example a junior developer who doesn't know of its existence and is
new to a job is less likely to admit ignorance and ask how a class is
being defined when __autoload() is being used.
That's a the dumbest reason I've ever heard to not use a given language feature.
It's a perfectly
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a perfectly viable business reason.
No it's not. I guess you need a business scenario to wrap your head
around the idiocy.
Here you go:
Imagine at Blizzard one morning, Hey guys, we're not going to be able
to use function pointers on the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Gustavo Narea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
I'm wondering what's wrong with the use of __autoload(), since I see that
projects like the Zend Framework don't use it and prefer to require_once
each required file.
Thanks in advance.
--
Gustavo
It's a perfectly viable business reason.
No it's not. I guess you need a business scenario to wrap your head
around the idiocy.
Here you go:
Imagine at Blizzard one morning, Hey guys, we're not going to be able
to use function pointers on the new Diablo III like we had planned to
do, the new
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 11.12-kor Greg Donald ezt írta:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all
know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*.
You clearly don't know much about it or else you wouldn't be
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not quite the situation. Finding good developers isn't easy, so
lots of companies will go for acceptable ones, who are less likely to
know of __autoloads existence. Hence, using __autoload is unwise.
A lesser developer should be paid
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I strongly think that Ruby as a
language just plain sucks ;)
And exactly how many projects do you have under your belt to allow you
to develop this opinion? What's the url to any one of them?
Unlike you I actually have thousands of lines
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No it's not. It's not like require_once() is a hassle to type/use
anyhow. Things like editor macros and templates help out enormously and
by using them over __auto load you (a business) could save yourself a
lot of time and hence money.
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine at Blizzard one morning, Hey guys, we're not going to be able
to use function pointers on the new Diablo III like we had planned to
do, the new hires down the hall don't understand them very well so
just don't use them, OK?
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 12.12-kor Greg Donald ezt írta:
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I strongly think that Ruby as a
language just plain sucks ;)
And exactly how many projects do you have under your belt to allow you
to develop this opinion? What's the
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 11:12 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all
know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*.
You clearly don't know much about it or else you wouldn't be bashing
it.
Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not quite the situation. Finding good developers isn't easy, so
lots of companies will go for acceptable ones, who are less likely to
know of __autoloads existence. Hence, using __autoload is unwise.
A lesser
Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not quite the situation. Finding good developers isn't easy, so
lots of companies will go for acceptable ones, who are less likely to
know of __autoloads existence.
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 11:26 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a perfectly viable business reason.
No it's not. I guess you need a business scenario to wrap your head
around the idiocy.
Here you go:
Imagine at Blizzard one morning, Hey
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 18:21 +0100, Zoltán Németh wrote:
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 12.12-kor Greg Donald ezt írta:
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I strongly think that Ruby as a
language just plain sucks ;)
And exactly how many projects do you have
On 12 Mar 2008, at 17:31, Wolf wrote:
Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
You're
gonna restrict the entire development team from using a given
feature
just because you don't want to invest 20 minutes in getting your
newbie developer up to spead? That's pure
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, I admit I don't have experience with Ruby but I have experience with
php. and I don't have experience with Ruby because I read some manuals
and example codes and whatnot and I just could not get to like it at
all.
That's a lot
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 13.27-kor Greg Donald ezt írta:
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, I admit I don't have experience with Ruby but I have experience with
php. and I don't have experience with Ruby because I read some manuals
and example codes and whatnot
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Zoltán Németh
Cc: Greg Donald; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 18:21 +0100, Zoltán Németh wrote
the __autoload()?
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Zoltán Németh
Cc: Greg Donald; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 18:21 +0100, Zoltán Németh
Subject: RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Zoltán Németh
Cc: Greg Donald; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Andrés Robinet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think __autoload would make much more sense if it worked like an event
registration feature. Such as:
function myAutoloadCallback($className) {
if ($className == 'ShakeItBaby') {
require_once
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't really think of a
case where I would want to modify the class definition of an
instantiated object
You can't very well think to walk if you don't have legs.
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 14:09 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't really think of a
case where I would want to modify the class definition of an
instantiated object
You can't very well think to walk if you don't have legs.
You make it
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 15.20-kor Robert Cummings ezt írta:
Even JavaScript has it.
oh yes, I could have thought of that. in JS you can assign a function to
a property or variable at runtime, even I did something similar, when I
assign the action functions of the buttons of a modal
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 15.20-kor Robert Cummings ezt írta:
Even JavaScript has it.
oh yes, I could have thought of that. in JS you can assign a function to
a property or variable at runtime, even I did
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You make it sound like this stuff is new or something.
Obviously to some it is. Just in this thread we had a person claim to
only know PHP, C, and Java, none of which have any functional language
capabilities built in.
Lisp and other
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Nobbe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Andrés Robinet
Cc: Robert Cummings; Zoltán Németh; Greg Donald; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Greg Donald wrote:
Here, let me dumb-it-down a bit:
PHP doesn't have much in the way of meta-programming capabilities.
Therefore one would not find it a natural thought to do much
meta-programming in PHP, unless one already knew of a language where
such support exists.
A different example
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lisp and other
functional languages have had it for decades. Even JavaScript has it.
I'm sorry, I lost context, what missing PHP language feature are you
referring to as it?
functional capabilities, in particular the
On 3/12/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I lost context, what missing PHP language feature are you
referring to as it?
functional capabilities, in particular the ability to dynamically add a
method to
-Original Message-
From: Greg Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:00 PM
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You make it sound like this stuff is new
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 14:59 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You make it sound like this stuff is new or something.
Obviously to some it is. Just in this thread we had a person claim to
only know PHP, C, and Java, none of which have any
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 15:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I lost context, what missing PHP language feature are you
referring to as it?
functional
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 15:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm sorry, I lost context, what
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but some of your diatribe was originally directed my way. And this
stuff certainly isn't new to me.
Sure it is, else you'd be using it.. like all the smart PHP
programmers I see on the Rails list looking to expand their tool set
on a
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
+2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
answer to your rhetorical question.
-1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack.
-1 for thinking +2 exists.
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
+2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
answer to your rhetorical question.
-1 for thinking
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
+2 for setting his tongue firmly in cheek and providing you with an
answer to your rhetorical question.
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but some of your diatribe was originally directed my way. And this
stuff certainly isn't new to me.
Sure it is, else you'd be using it.. like all the smart PHP
programmers I
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:26 +0100, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question.
+2 for setting his tongue firmly in
On 3/12/08, Aschwin Wesselius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you)
Playing the game by claiming the game is wrong to play is still
playing the game.
-1 for playing the game hypocritically.
-1 for thinking -5 exists.
--
Greg
Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:26 +0100, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:11 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert
-Original Message-
From: Dave Goodchild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 PM
To: Robert Cummings
Cc: Aschwin Wesselius; Greg Donald; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
Will you two pricks cut it out. How f
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.
Translation: I'm too lazy
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're new around here right?
Hehe. For sure.
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 3/12/08, Dave Goodchild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.
Tedious? Sorry.
/me passes the buddhamagnet a dictionary so he can keep up.
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get jobs done.
Ray Hauge wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
of playing with flashy toys. I like to use tools that get
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 21:36 +, Dave Goodchild wrote:
Will you two pricks cut it out. How fucking tedious.
Wow! Way to totally devolve a good thread.
:B
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 17:05 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because someone got a flashy new toy doesn't mean I want it. I've
got better things to do than play with flashy toys for the mere purpose
of playing with flashy toys. I like to
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 17:05 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:
/me points to SPL and laughs his ass off
I don't use SPL.
i do.
it makes handling recursion and a number of other tasks a breeze. not
liking it because the
Stut wrote:
On 12 Mar 2008, at 17:31, Wolf wrote:
Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
You're
gonna restrict the entire development team from using a given feature
just because you don't want to invest 20 minutes in getting your
newbie developer up to spead? That's
79 matches
Mail list logo
