Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 electronic medical records. I have 6 significant Rails projects of my own I still work on and maintain. None of those are in acedemia. But in academia, just in the last 6 months I've rolled out a heart drug study for young heart surgery patients. The app services 21 university medical centers worldwide. It uses Oracle and has around 60+ tables. I alone coded the app in about 6 weeks. Currently I'm working on another drug study with two other developers, again in Rails using Oracle. What you call a toy I call the most useful tool I've ever had the pleasure of using. And not the most successful one, since I've heard people talking like you back in 2005. Ruby on Rails is not new and has not proved anything yet. Obviously not everyone is smart enough to know an excellent tool when they see one. It's an arrogant language, No, it's an OO language, and a much better OO implementation than anything else available, except perhaps C++. so much arrogant that its community pretend it can fix the world. That's not _my_ claim. But I surely wouldn't have PHP, or any of the Rails clone frameworks written in it, appearing at the top of my available technologies list. Back in 2005 I was very enthusiastic and thought it could have a future, but after confirming what other poster said the RoR community is insane, I didn't give a f... anymore. They're not insane, just excited to have better tools. I believe it will become some piece of *enterprise-class* piece of dust in the best of scenarios. I, of course, do not. In the meantime, the web moves towards PHP more and more. Stats to back up your claim? The last time I looked at the Apache module stats, mod_php was on the decline. Look at it this way, in 2001 M$ released the .Net Framework. It's been 7 YEARS since PHP is STILL the leader and will be so for many more years. And .Net has the glorious Visual Studio IDE, compiled code, built-in caching, and idiot-proof tools, and has the BIGGEST software company behind. Do you think that the work of a man can do much more than that? Specially, a man that has the arrogance of a big Co.? Pointing to a company and their many failures in no way makes PHP a better tool than Ruby and Rails. In March 2007 David Heinemeier Hansson filed three Rails related trademark applications to the USPTO. These applications regard the phrase RUBY ON RAILS, the word RAILS and the official Rails logo. As a consequence, in the summer of 2007 Hansson denied to Apress the permission to use the Rails logo on the cover of a new Rails book written by some authoritative community members. The episode gave rise to a polite protest in the Rails community. In response to this criticism, Hansson made the following claims: quote I only grant promotional use [of the Rails logo] for products I'm directly involved with. Such as books that I've been part of the development process for or conferences where I have a say in the execution. I would most definitely seek to enforce all the trademarks of Rails /quote How is that any fucking different than Rasmus himself contacting me in 1999 telling me I had to rename my PHPLinks project because I wasn't associated with the PHP project itself? Pot-kettle-black. Sorry, even if it was the ONE AND ONLY programming language... I will dismiss it until it becomes a business need, as I don't even trust its creator. PHP is easy to deal with, it's free... and IT GETS THE JOB DONE. You mentioned something about projects done on RoR you can share... why don't you show us your PHP work instead? This URL lists my many open source PHP projects: http://destiney.com/php Where are yours? Here are many (PHP) sites I've worked on in the past few years: Centerstone Behavioral Health - http://centerstone.org/ Med Center Today - http://medcentertoday.com/ Caste Contractors - http://castlecontractors.com/ Filmhouse.com - http://filmhouse.com/ EZsweeps - http://ezsweeps.com/ LuckyShop - http://ezsweeps.com/shoppingnew.php Maybe you like RoR more because you suck at PHP. Maybe you're a fucking retard. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 - $x throws in $Q - $w throws in $wtf - $foo, $fee, and $fii join in - $someone mentions $TLC - $o calls us all immature - $SJHSKJ mentions Nazis - $x invokes Godwin's Law - $y asserts Quirk's Exception - $G_Zus resurrects point $d - $nobody wins - $r, $u, $stillWithMe Aaah. so we're just six points before the end of this thread? ;-) -- Aschwin Wesselius /'What you would like to be done to you, do that to the other'/
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 with rebuttal $i and often asserts a few other things that well call $f, $g - $x throws in $Q - $w throws in $wtf - $foo, $fee, and $fii join in - $someone mentions $TLC - $o calls us all immature - $SJHSKJ mentions Nazis - $x invokes Godwin's Law - $y asserts Quirk's Exception - $G_Zus resurrects point $d - $nobody wins - $r, $u, $stillWithMe Aaah. so we're just six points before the end of this thread? ;-) threads like this live forever. after we all finish with it, sooner or later someone will say something which will trigger its resurrection greets, Zoltán Németh -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 well call $f, $g - $x throws in $Q - $w throws in $wtf - $foo, $fee, and $fii join in - $someone mentions $TLC - $o calls us all immature - $SJHSKJ mentions Nazis - $x invokes Godwin's Law - $y asserts Quirk's Exception - $G_Zus resurrects point $d - $nobody wins - $r, $u, $stillWithMe Cheers, Rob. 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 whatever. But it really exists! Nice to know. -- Aschwin Wesselius /'What you would like to be done to you, do that to the other'/
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 - $x throws in $Q - $w throws in $wtf - $foo, $fee, and $fii join in - $someone mentions $TLC - $o calls us all immature - $SJHSKJ mentions Nazis - $x invokes Godwin's Law - $y asserts Quirk's Exception - $G_Zus resurrects point $d - $nobody wins - $r, $u, $stillWithMe Cheers, Rob. Aha, you lose. You were the first to mention Nazis. :-) Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 whatever. But it really exists! Nice to know. Once you lose a valid argument, because you happen to use Hitler as a bad example, you learn to never use it again. It's a stupid Law, but too many use it. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 something like Ruby on Rails... and we all know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*. /snip It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. I choose to use a language for a while before forming an opinion. I certainly wouldn't let someone's opinion sway my own inquisitive nature to have a go at it myself. The community is insane! No more insane than 10 years ago when a great many of us realized we didn't have to use Perl any more to do web dev. I clearly remember hearing things said like Now we have PHP and it's much better and much easier than Perl. I see similar happenings with Ruby and Rails right now. It's that same ease of use that now makes PHP feel like a beast to work with. This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny. http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml Looks pretty stupid to me.. what does a dog humping a cat have to do with anything in technology? Please keep your animal pr0n to yourself. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 proclaim anything, Rob did: snip But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*. /snip It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. I choose to use a language for a while before forming an opinion. I certainly wouldn't let someone's opinion sway my own inquisitive nature to have a go at it myself. The community is insane! No more insane than 10 years ago when a great many of us realized we didn't have to use Perl any more to do web dev. I clearly remember hearing things said like Now we have PHP and it's much better and much easier than Perl. I see similar happenings with Ruby and Rails right now. It's that same ease of use that now makes PHP feel like a beast to work with. This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny. http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml Looks pretty stupid to me.. what does a dog humping a cat have to do with anything in technology? Because PHP is the dog and Ruby is the cat? *heheh* Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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: http://marc.info/?l=php-generalm=95331489301933w=2 And I didn't proclaim anything, Rob did: snip But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*. /snip It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. I choose to use a language for a while before forming an opinion. I certainly wouldn't let someone's opinion sway my own inquisitive nature to have a go at it myself. The community is insane! No more insane than 10 years ago when a great many of us realized we didn't have to use Perl any more to do web dev. I clearly remember hearing things said like Now we have PHP and it's much better and much easier than Perl. I see similar happenings with Ruby and Rails right now. It's that same ease of use that now makes PHP feel like a beast to work with. This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny. http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml Looks pretty stupid to me.. what does a dog humping a cat have to do with anything in technology? Please keep your animal pr0n to yourself. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Ruby must really increase your work performance as you seem to have so much free time to troll here. Awesome! :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 right or wrong. The issue people are having is your attitude from about reply #2 from you on this thread. I just wanted to make that point clear. Trolling and being antagonistic doesn't get you anywhere. 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. I will give you that you weren't the first to submit an opinion of Ruby being the best or the worst. Your first reply was simply open minded, but then you got your feathers all ruffled when someone said they didn't like Ruby, albeit in a somewhat negative connotation. It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. I choose to use a language for a while before forming an opinion. I certainly wouldn't let someone's opinion sway my own inquisitive nature to have a go at it myself. The reason it turns people off is you have to work with the community as well as the language. If you want the project to get better, you need to be able to work with the community. I will admit that the PHP Internals list can get pretty heated as well, but those arguments are usually based on technical opinions and not religious fervor for the language*. * Note: I haven't read a whole lot on the Internals list, but based on summaries by PHP|Architect and other sources I have assumed my conclusion. -- Ray Hauge www.primateapplications.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 a new model or controller is really fast. It really is awesome. :) -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 has admitted that Ruby is as smart as a cat. I like something a little more edgy personally. Something closer to human... something with personality, something that evolves, something not afraid to be itself. PHP fits the bill. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better? Since Ruby on Rails is younger than PHP, your statement implies a recent arrival to the list. I will give you that you weren't the first to submit an opinion of Ruby being the best or the worst. Your first reply was simply open minded, but then you got your feathers all ruffled when someone said they didn't like Ruby, albeit in a somewhat negative connotation. My feathers are in no way ruffled. You think a little arguing with Rob or you about Rails is some big deal to me? Clearly you are the one who just showed up. Heated technology discussions occur on lists all the time, this one certainly isn't immune to that sort of off-topic digression. It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. I seriously doubt my mere words would sway anyone away from a specific technology. You're still using PHP, correct? Rob? The reason it turns people off is you have to work with the community as Please, enough with the turned-on, turned-off stuff, it's really not what I had in mind at all. well as the language. If you want the project to get better, you need The Rails project _already_ rocks, whatever do you mean? Truth is I would actually like for core Rails development to slow down a bit so my latest Rails book I just bought isn't out of date in 6-8 months. to be able to work with the community. So if I can't work with the community Rails effectively, Rails will not get better? I seriously can't follow your ramblings. I will admit that the PHP Internals list can get pretty heated as well, but those arguments are usually based on technical opinions and not religious fervor for the language*. Point? -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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... something with personality, something that evolves, something not afraid to be itself. PHP fits the bill. PHP is anything but itself. Before it was actually written in C it was first written in Perl. And although it may be written in C and may look like C and Perl right now, it's clearly evolving into something very similar to Java. PHP has a long, long history with identity crisis, ongoing even today. Meanwhile Ruby was written as a full-on OO language from the start. The OO layer didn't get strapped on at version 3 like with PHP. OO was the main idea from the very start with Ruby. As a result Ruby's OO model makes PHP's OO model look like a steaming pile of shit out in the pasture. Hell, Perl's OO even makes PHP's OO look bad syntax-wise. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 a little more edgy personally. Something closer to human... something with personality, something that evolves, something not afraid to be itself. PHP fits the bill. PHP is anything but itself. Before it was actually written in C it was first written in Perl. And although it may be written in C and may look like C and Perl right now, it's clearly evolving into something very similar to Java. PHP has a long, long history with identity crisis, ongoing even today. But PHP is neither C, Perl, or Java. It's PHP, it formed it's own identity. Meanwhile Ruby was written as a full-on OO language from the start. The OO layer didn't get strapped on at version 3 like with PHP. Strapped on is called evolution. Somewhere along the line some creature strapped on a pair of eyeballs... and now you can read. Or maybe you're a creationist... to each their own I suppose. OO was the main idea from the very start with Ruby. As a result Ruby's OO model makes PHP's OO model look like a steaming pile of shit out in the pasture. Hell, Perl's OO even makes PHP's OO look bad syntax-wise. PHP gives you options. You can code procedural or OO. It's up to you. Functional would be nice in some cases, but it's not a requirement. Personally I like to KISS and make lightweight use of OOP principles. In that respect, but certainly not limited to that respect, I really can't say the syntax looks bad. Now Ruby syntax... that is weird... so too is Perl syntax. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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, well, it is -working- but not as like as you know from Java. In Java I can create a type-hinted hash-map in one line, by the type-hint is an interface. Very nice and small code. :) Ruby might also be able to do this. In PHP I have to write a class which does this for me. Well, what I want to say is that you cannot compare PHP with wether RoR nor Java. RoR is a framework, PHP is not. Java is 99.99% pure OO, PHP is not. Hope that gives you an idea. :) And btw: Hello. I'm new to this list. ;-) Roland On Thursday, 13. March 2008, 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 a little more edgy personally. Something closer to human... something with personality, something that evolves, something not afraid to be itself. PHP fits the bill. PHP is anything but itself. Before it was actually written in C it was first written in Perl. And although it may be written in C and may look like C and Perl right now, it's clearly evolving into something very similar to Java. PHP has a long, long history with identity crisis, ongoing even today. Meanwhile Ruby was written as a full-on OO language from the start. The OO layer didn't get strapped on at version 3 like with PHP. OO was the main idea from the very start with Ruby. As a result Ruby's OO model makes PHP's OO model look like a steaming pile of shit out in the pasture. Hell, Perl's OO even makes PHP's OO look bad syntax-wise. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- Weblog: http://blog.mxchange.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
-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 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... something with personality, something that evolves, something not afraid to be itself. PHP fits the bill. PHP is anything but itself. Before it was actually written in C it was first written in Perl. And although it may be written in C and may look like C and Perl right now, it's clearly evolving into something very similar to Java. PHP has a long, long history with identity crisis, ongoing even today. Meanwhile Ruby was written as a full-on OO language from the start. The OO layer didn't get strapped on at version 3 like with PHP. OO was the main idea from the very start with Ruby. As a result Ruby's OO model makes PHP's OO model look like a steaming pile of shit out in the pasture. Hell, Perl's OO even makes PHP's OO look bad syntax-wise. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ Sorry dude, RoR is still an academic toy. And not the most successful one, since I've heard people talking like you back in 2005. Ruby on Rails is not new and has not proved anything yet. It's an arrogant language, so much arrogant that its community pretend it can fix the world. Back in 2005 I was very enthusiastic and thought it could have a future, but after confirming what other poster said the RoR community is insane, I didn't give a f... anymore. I believe it will become some piece of *enterprise-class* piece of dust in the best of scenarios. In the meantime, the web moves towards PHP more and more. And if they need a fat cat... they don't use RoR, just the Tom Cat. Look at it this way, in 2001 M$ released the .Net Framework. It's been 7 YEARS since PHP is STILL the leader and will be so for many more years. And .Net has the glorious Visual Studio IDE, compiled code, built-in caching, and idiot-proof tools, and has the BIGGEST software company behind. Do you think that the work of a man can do much more than that? Specially, a man that has the arrogance of a big Co.? In March 2007 David Heinemeier Hansson filed three Rails related trademark applications to the USPTO. These applications regard the phrase RUBY ON RAILS, the word RAILS and the official Rails logo. As a consequence, in the summer of 2007 Hansson denied to Apress the permission to use the Rails logo on the cover of a new Rails book written by some authoritative community members. The episode gave rise to a polite protest in the Rails community. In response to this criticism, Hansson made the following claims: quote I only grant promotional use [of the Rails logo] for products I'm directly involved with. Such as books that I've been part of the development process for or conferences where I have a say in the execution. I would most definitely seek to enforce all the trademarks of Rails /quote Sorry, even if it was the ONE AND ONLY programming language... I will dismiss it until it becomes a business need, as I don't even trust its creator. PHP is easy to deal with, it's free... and IT GETS THE JOB DONE. You mentioned something about projects done on RoR you can share... why don't you show us your PHP work instead? Maybe you like RoR more because you suck at PHP. Regards, Rob -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 acceptable for grown up (you DO have pubic hair don't you?), mature and decent people to call names and try to convince each other of having a bigger, better whatever than the other etc.? Is that PHP-list culture? Is it something to get used to? Is it the core of senior PHP-developers or what? So, explain it to me, what is it that I could have missed? Is it somewhere in the archives? Is it explained on some FAQ page? Does it take some potions by full moon on a 3rd friday in may to get into this state? It is OK do discuss a subject, to get overheated by passion, ignorance, irritation, misunderstanding or a mix of all of them. But isn't calling names and comparing bodyparts (and what not) something for kinder garten? I'm not here to preach, I'm here to learn. So initiate me, tell me what is so important that we keep putting energy into convincing somebody that he's an idiot, a dumbass, an elite RoR fetishist etc. Does it give you a good feeling? Can I try? Should I try? Is it worth it? Will I become as enlightened as some of you are? I don't want to miss out on this great experience, if it is worth it. It must be something amazing, really. If that makes the PHP community as great as it has become, I want to join and put some effort in this marvelous activity. Aschwin Wesselius -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 initiation needed on this list which I've missed? Definetly, you need to express your ego, and be thick skinnned. How come it is acceptable for grown up (you DO have pubic hair don't you?), don't use obscenities, this just look stupid on your part when someone google the list. Maby for your name? mature and decent people to call names and try to convince each other of having a bigger, better whatever than the other etc.? It's called discussion, you both walk og talk your stuff, so do others and if smart enought, someone may learn something from it. Is that PHP-list culture? Is it something to get used to? Is it the core of senior PHP-developers or what? It's people with opinions, strong ones to at times. So, explain it to me, what is it that I could have missed? Is it somewhere in the archives? Is it explained on some FAQ page? Does it take some potions by full moon on a 3rd friday in may to get into this state? You got different kinds of people here, like me, just doing this for a hobby, I can take some new age weird nerdy talk of nonecense. However, there are those who do this for a living (not just php, but web design or lamp og wamp (how is that for a acronyme =D?)), they don't take lightly on having a serious discussion with someone who just f* around telling halftruths. It is OK do discuss a subject, to get overheated by passion, ignorance, irritation, misunderstanding or a mix of all of them. But isn't calling names and comparing bodyparts (and what not) something for kinder garten? Everybody has those, has to do with experience, and the respect for those who know what they talk about (that would be those who do this for a living) I'm not here to preach, I'm here to learn. So initiate me, tell me what is so important that we keep putting energy into convincing somebody that he's an idiot, a dumbass, an elite RoR fetishist etc. Does it give you a good feeling? Can I try? Should I try? Is it worth it? Will I become as enlightened as some of you are? Discuss that on a civil dunno, some cafe bar hangaround chat page... If you on the other hand got some problem with your php code, some questions for what you are looking for (i.e. what set of commands is capable of doing...) you've come to the right page. I don't want to miss out on this great experience, if it is worth it. It must be something amazing, really. If that makes the PHP community as great as it has become, I want to join and put some effort in this marvelous activity. noones hindering you, just keep in mind that much of these ppl do this for a living and time/money/effort/payoff vs the hobbyist thinkering and thoughts is often two completly different mindsets at least, THAT is what I read from the list these last couple of years. Aschwin Wesselius ps. stop whining. If offended, lay low till something new comes to mind or you find some more interesting topic to join in on. -- --- Børge Holen http://www.arivene.net -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 explicitly causing them (ie require() et al) can lead to confusion. 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. -- Gustavo Narea. http://gustavonarea.net/ Get rid of unethical constraints! - Switch to Freedomware: http://softwareliberty.com/ - Reclaim your culture: http://lifesnotreadonly.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 initiation needed on this list which I've missed? How come it is acceptable for grown up (you DO have pubic hair don't you?), mature and decent people to call names and try to convince each other of having a bigger, better whatever than the other etc.? Is that PHP-list culture? Is it something to get used to? Is it the core of senior PHP-developers or what? So, explain it to me... 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 - $x throws in $Q - $w throws in $wtf - $foo, $fee, and $fii join in - $someone mentions $TLC - $o calls us all immature - $SJHSKJ mentions Nazis - $x invokes Godwin's Law - $y asserts Quirk's Exception - $G_Zus resurrects point $d - $nobody wins - $r, $u, $stillWithMe Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 Narea. http://gustavonarea.net/ Get GNU/Linux! http://www.getgnulinux.org/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 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. -- Richard Heyes Employ me: http://www.phpguru.org/cv -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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() et al) can lead to confusion. It's called convention over configuration and that's exactly where good frameworks should be headed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_Configuration 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. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 that happen without you explicitly causing them (ie require() et al) can lead to confusion. It's called convention over configuration and that's exactly where good frameworks should be headed. But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*. Who wants to be stuck on a track when they can soar with the eagles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_Configuration Interesting how the article promotes the ideas of both convention and configuration co-existing so that one doesn't lose versatility. Thus, one could infer that any good framework would allow both paradigms. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 new, better ways of doing things and move on. On the other hand, if there's something in Rails you genuinely don't understand, I'll be happy to assist you with that particular understanding, off-list or wherever, free of charge. Who wants to be stuck on a track when they can soar with the eagles. I dunno, why not ask the many Rails clone authors? I certainly don't see any Ruby programmers trying to copy ZF or Symphony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_Configuration Interesting how the article promotes the ideas of both convention and configuration co-existing so that one doesn't lose versatility. Thus, one could infer that any good framework would allow both paradigms. Rails supports both naturally. It has configurable environments for development, testing, and production, all pre-configured for the most common cases. You can even create your own new environments if you have something that doesn't fit into dev/test/prod very easily. Complete versatility in every regard thanks to Ruby's meta-ness. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 viable business reason. -- Richard Heyes Employ me: http://www.phpguru.org/cv -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 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? -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 Narea. http://gustavonarea.net/ Get GNU/Linux! http://www.getgnulinux.org/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Use spl autoload register instead. This way your app and dependent libraries can have their own autoloaders. http://us2.php.net/manual/en/function.spl-autoload-register.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 hires down the hall don't understand them very well so just don't use them, OK? 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. -- Richard Heyes Employ me: http://www.phpguru.org/cv -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 bashing it. Period. Just admit the fact that you're resistant to learn new, better ways of doing things and move on. hey, we had a conversation about this a while back, and I'm still not convinced about RoR being 'better'. it has several cool ideas, which some php frameworks also follow now (and a few that would be cool in php frameworks but not yet implemented), but I strongly think that Ruby as a language just plain sucks ;) greets, Zoltán Németh On the other hand, if there's something in Rails you genuinely don't understand, I'll be happy to assist you with that particular understanding, off-list or wherever, free of charge. Who wants to be stuck on a track when they can soar with the eagles. I dunno, why not ask the many Rails clone authors? I certainly don't see any Ruby programmers trying to copy ZF or Symphony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_Configuration Interesting how the article promotes the ideas of both convention and configuration co-existing so that one doesn't lose versatility. Thus, one could infer that any good framework would allow both paradigms. Rails supports both naturally. It has configurable environments for development, testing, and production, all pre-configured for the most common cases. You can even create your own new environments if you have something that doesn't fit into dev/test/prod very easily. Complete versatility in every regard thanks to Ruby's meta-ness. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 less and should be expected to produce less but he should not in any way be allowed to refrain from learning. How long does it take to understand __autoload() anyway? 5-10 minutes? 15 or 20 if you play with an example for a bit? 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 idiocy. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 of Ruby code under my belt that allows me to properly develop an opinion of Ruby and Rails and how they both compare to every other programming language and framework I know and have developed in. Need a URL? -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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. I'm not defending __autoload() specifically, I don't do much OO PHP anyway so I couldn't possibly care less about it. My argument is that asking other developers to not use specific language features simply because lesser developers may not know them very well is just plain dumb. I'm sorry you don't get it and I'm done trying to help you get it. Good luck codling your lesser developers. May they never learn jack on their own. *sigh* -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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? This is not a valid comparison. The above is the replacement of one convention with another convention. It is not a case of circumventing a convention to achieve a specific, and probably desired outcome. It's a dead-on, same example, just with a different programming language and a different language feature. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 url to any one of them? Unlike you I actually have thousands of lines of Ruby code under my belt that allows me to properly develop an opinion of Ruby and Rails and how they both compare to every other programming language and framework I know and have developed in. Need a URL? 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. it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c, java) - and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the differences... e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and 'end'? I just don't like it and it's a matter of taste, so there is no need to argue about it more... :) however that's not about the framework, I admit that Rails had several new and useful concepts, and I know that the framework I currently use took a lot of ideas from there. greets, Zoltán Németh -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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. Period. Ummm, I've looked into Ruby and RoR. I've tried it out. I've read many many many articles on it. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. Just admit the fact that you're resistant to learn new, better ways of doing things and move on. Ooooh... a personal attack... what a great way to make me reflect upon my dislike of RoR. I think the only person around here qualified to throw around facts about me is... you know... ME! On the other hand, if there's something in Rails you genuinely don't understand, I'll be happy to assist you with that particular understanding, off-list or wherever, free of charge. Oh, there's nothing I don't understand about it. I just don't like it. Can't a person just not like something anymore? Can't I have my own opinion anymore? What year is this? 1984?? ... In an alternate universe that was supposed to be averted? Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 developer should be paid less and should be expected to produce less but he should not in any way be allowed to refrain from learning. I agree. But having worked in the (then) fast paced environment of online DVD rental, time was not available. How long does it take to understand __autoload() anyway? 5-10 minutes? I would say as long as it takes to read the manual page, which isn't that long at all. 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 idiocy. 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. -- Richard Heyes Employ me: http://www.phpguru.org/cv -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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. Hence, using __autoload is unwise. A lesser developer should be paid less and should be expected to produce less but he should not in any way be allowed to refrain from learning. I agree. But having worked in the (then) fast paced environment of online DVD rental, time was not available. Learning always has to happen, even if you don't think it is... Some are just slower then others. How long does it take to understand __autoload() anyway? 5-10 minutes? I would say as long as it takes to read the manual page, which isn't that long at all. And you have to couple in with that the person's mental capacity for what they are trying to learn, their background, and if they have any other knowledge of the subject. 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 idiocy. 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. I actually prefer to use a site prepend and append, then in the prepend file is where I throw all my requires and such. pretty much takes care of any learning curve since with the prepended file doing the heavy lifting. Wolf -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 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? This is not a valid comparison. The above is the replacement of one convention with another convention. It is not a case of circumventing a convention to achieve a specific, and probably desired outcome. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 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 of Ruby code under my belt that allows me to properly develop an opinion of Ruby and Rails and how they both compare to every other programming language and framework I know and have developed in. Need a URL? 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. it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c, java) - and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the differences... e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and 'end'? Because they didn't follow convention... *HAHAHA* oh my, I think I just pee'd myself. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 idiocy. 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. I actually prefer to use a site prepend and append, then in the prepend file is where I throw all my requires and such. pretty much takes care of any learning curve since with the prepended file doing the heavy lifting. But by doing so you're including a lot of code you almost certainly don't use on every page. That can pointlessly consume resources on a busy server. I use __autoload (and for new projects the SPL version) because I know that anyone who can't get it within 5 minutes is not someone I want to work with. Not using language features because some developers might not know about it is going to restrict you to the sort of instruction set you get in Assembler. I've been working with PHP for a very long time and I certainly don't claim to know everything about it or about every feature it has. Restrict your code in that way and you'll create a slow unmaintainable mess. IMHO. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 different from your previous blanket statement of Ruby
as a language just plain sucks. I hate you less now that I know a
bit more about you, see how that works?
it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c,
java) -
Ruby has a lot of functional language influence. Once you use it you
really start to like how much shorter your iterative loops are for
example. The first two developers I worked with using Ruby also knew
ML and Scheme. One of them suggested I go study Scheme so I would
appreciate Ruby more. I did so for several weeks and now I do. Ruby
provides everything from the procedural world we're currently used to
seeing in PHP, C, and Java, but it also adds functional style that
makes for some utterly beautiful, compact code.
and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the
differences...
And you won't until you use it in practice more than once. But that's
true of most any language. I worked in Python by day for the better
part of last year and man was it fun seeing other ideas for how to do
things.
e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and
'end'?
def is shorter than PHP's function qualifier? I give up. 'end' is
optionally replacable with '}', as is 'do' and '{' but you probably
didn't ever get to that page in the Ruby book you read.
I just don't like it and it's a matter of taste,
In my experience matter of taste usually equates to resistance to
learning, but call it what you will.
so there is no
need to argue about it more... :)
There's always reason to argue the features of a given language. For
example you may need to try and convince me at some point that Zombie
is a great language:
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/zombie.html
Or not.
however that's not about the framework, I admit that Rails had several
new and useful concepts, and I know that the framework I currently use
took a lot of ideas from there.
Those other frameworks can never be as powerful as Rails because they
aren't written in something as meta-capable as Ruby. Can you do this
in PHP?
class Foo
end
f = Foo.new
class Foo
Resource.find( :all ).each do |r|
res = r.name.downcase
define_method( op_cost_#{ res }.to_sym ) do
self.properties.inject( 0 ){ |c,p| c + p.send( op_cost_#{ res } ) }
end
end
end
cost = f.op_cost_wheat
No you can't. PHP doesn't support adding methods to classes at
runtime, nor does it support adding methods to instantiated objects of
those classes at runtime. And that's just one example. These sort of
OO advantages exist throughout Ruby.
You don't love these features because you don't know they exist. You
don't know they exist because you haven't given the language more than
a few minutes of your time. Running through some silly little 5
minute Rails scaffolding tutorial will in no way teach you the real
power that exists in Ruby.
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 and I just could not get to like it at
all.
That's a lot different from your previous blanket statement of Ruby
as a language just plain sucks. I hate you less now that I know a
bit more about you, see how that works?
didn't you notice the smiley at the end of that line? that was not a
serious plain statement but some mocking at you because you made a plain
statement about RoR being better.
it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c,
java) -
Ruby has a lot of functional language influence. Once you use it you
really start to like how much shorter your iterative loops are for
example. The first two developers I worked with using Ruby also knew
ML and Scheme. One of them suggested I go study Scheme so I would
appreciate Ruby more. I did so for several weeks and now I do. Ruby
provides everything from the procedural world we're currently used to
seeing in PHP, C, and Java, but it also adds functional style that
makes for some utterly beautiful, compact code.
'utterly beautiful' is again a matter of taste :)
of course, I admit that Ruby would provide me all the features I
currently use, it has to, otherwise noone would start using it instead
of their current language. and yes, I see from the examples that it is
shorter. but is shortness/compactness such a great advantage? I'm not at
all sure about that.
and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the
differences...
And you won't until you use it in practice more than once. But that's
true of most any language. I worked in Python by day for the better
part of last year and man was it fun seeing other ideas for how to do
things.
that might be true, but in the last year I've been working on the same
big project, and it seems I will be working on it for this year too, you
know, next versions and such, so at this moment I don't have serious
amount of time to experiment with anything. in fact, I'm also a bit
workaholic and also I'm attending some evening university so I hardly
have time to read a manual completely...
e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and
'end'?
def is shorter than PHP's function qualifier? I give up. 'end' is
optionally replacable with '}', as is 'do' and '{' but you probably
didn't ever get to that page in the Ruby book you read.
as I said above, I had/have not much time, so my reading might have been
sloppy... and is shortness that important?
I just don't like it and it's a matter of taste,
In my experience matter of taste usually equates to resistance to
learning, but call it what you will.
well, there is difference between that. its like if you have a very
limited time frame you can spend on learning, you choose to learn more
of something you like already, no? sure, if I had more time, I would
experiment more with things I don't like or I don't know really.
so there is no
need to argue about it more... :)
There's always reason to argue the features of a given language. For
example you may need to try and convince me at some point that Zombie
is a great language:
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/zombie.html
Or not.
however that's not about the framework, I admit that Rails had several
new and useful concepts, and I know that the framework I currently use
took a lot of ideas from there.
Those other frameworks can never be as powerful as Rails because they
aren't written in something as meta-capable as Ruby. Can you do this
in PHP?
class Foo
end
f = Foo.new
class Foo
Resource.find( :all ).each do |r|
res = r.name.downcase
define_method( op_cost_#{ res }.to_sym ) do
self.properties.inject( 0 ){ |c,p| c + p.send( op_cost_#{ res } ) }
end
end
end
cost = f.op_cost_wheat
No you can't. PHP doesn't support adding methods to classes at
runtime, nor does it support adding methods to instantiated objects of
those classes at runtime. And that's just one example. These sort of
OO advantages exist throughout Ruby.
You don't love these features because you don't know they exist. You
don't know they exist because you haven't given the language more than
a few minutes of your time. Running through some silly little 5
minute Rails scaffolding tutorial will in no way teach you the real
power that exists in Ruby.
hmm that feature looks interesting, however I can't really think of a
case where I would want to modify the class definition of an
instantiated object maybe later, when I'll have some more time I
give Ruby a second run, and we'll see what comes out of that.
greets,
Zoltán Németh
--
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/
--
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, 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 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 of Ruby code under my
belt that allows me to properly develop an opinion of Ruby and Rails
and how they both compare to every other programming language and
framework I know and have developed in. Need a URL?
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. it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c,
java) - and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the
differences... e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and
'end'?
Because they didn't follow convention... *HAHAHA* oh my, I think I just
pee'd myself.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
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 'ShakeItBaby.class.php';
return true;
}
return false;
}
.
__autoloadRegisterCallback('myAutoloadCallback');
.
$shaker = new ShakeItBaby();
This way, multiple frameworks and project requirements for autoload wouldn't
clash. If one of the autoload callbacks returns true that would be it.
Otherwise the next autoload callback would be called, and so on.
The problem with the current implementation is that if you get some piece of
code that uses __autoload and you are using __autoload too, you'll have to
either patch that piece of code (if the piece of code is a framework, things
will get much more complicated when updating to the next version) or patch your
own code, or just make a promise not to use __autoload (my current choice...
just in case) or not to use pieces of code that use __autoload. Bottom line,
I hate it.
Something similar applies to the set_error_handling function, anyone can
overwrite your error handling and you can overwrite the error handling of
anyone. I hate it also, so I rather check the return value of functions, and/or
use exceptions for custom error handling.
I don't see why autoload and error handling can't be implemented in a
stack-like way, returning false from the callback moves to the next error
handler / autoloader, returning true ends the handler search process...
though this is more of a question to be made to the interlals list (b...
can't face their karma yet).
Anyway... the more PHP approaches OOP and gets OOP features, the more it can be
done through design patterns such as the Registry/Singleton/etc... and the more
Exceptions are used for PECL extensions, and this seems the trend for the
future of PHP.
Regards,
Rob(inet)
Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 |
TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 |
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | MSN Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SKYPE: bestplace |
Web: bestplace.biz | Web: seo-diy.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
Anyone know any PHP Developers who are looking for employment
-Original Message-
From: Andrés Robinet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:53 PM
To: 'Robert Cummings'; 'Zoltán Németh'
Cc: 'Greg Donald'; php-general@lists.php.net
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, 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 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 of Ruby code under my
belt that allows me to properly develop an opinion of Ruby and Rails
and how they both compare to every other programming language and
framework I know and have developed in. Need a URL?
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. it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c,
java) - and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the
differences... e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and
'end'?
Because they didn't follow convention... *HAHAHA* oh my, I think I just
pee'd myself.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
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 'ShakeItBaby.class.php';
return true;
}
return false;
}
.
__autoloadRegisterCallback('myAutoloadCallback');
.
$shaker = new ShakeItBaby();
This way, multiple frameworks and project requirements for autoload wouldn't
clash. If one of the autoload callbacks returns true that would be it.
Otherwise the next autoload callback would be called, and so on.
The problem with the current implementation is that if you get some piece of
code that uses __autoload and you are using __autoload too, you'll have to
either patch that piece of code (if the piece of code is a framework, things
will get much more complicated when updating to the next version) or patch your
own code, or just make a promise not to use __autoload (my current choice...
just in case) or not to use pieces of code that use __autoload. Bottom line,
I hate it.
Something similar applies to the set_error_handling function, anyone can
overwrite your error handling and you can overwrite the error handling of
anyone. I hate it also, so I rather check the return value of functions, and/or
use exceptions for custom error handling.
I don't see why autoload and error handling can't be implemented in a
stack-like way, returning false from the callback moves to the next error
handler / autoloader, returning true ends the handler search process...
though this is more of a question to be made to the interlals list (b...
can't face their karma yet).
Anyway... the more PHP approaches OOP and gets OOP features, the more it can be
done through design patterns such as the Registry/Singleton/etc... and the more
Exceptions are used for PECL extensions, and this seems the trend for the
future of PHP.
Regards,
Rob(inet)
Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 |
TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 |
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | MSN Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SKYPE: bestplace |
Web: bestplace.biz | Web: seo-diy.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 15.07-kor Stephane Ulysse ezt írta:
Anyone know any PHP Developers who are looking for employment
don't hijack other people's threads, start your own if you want to ask
anything.
and job offers should contain some information about the job and the
employer, and the subject line should be relevant to your question, and
etc etc etc
greets,
Zoltán Németh
-Original Message-
From: Andrés Robinet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:53 PM
To: 'Robert Cummings'; 'Zoltán Németh'
Cc: 'Greg Donald'; php-general@lists.php.net
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, 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 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 of Ruby code under my
belt that allows me to properly develop an opinion of Ruby and Rails
and how they both compare to every other programming language and
framework I know and have developed in. Need a URL?
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. it's just so strange and different from anything I know (php, c,
java) - and I could not find out any good reasons for most of the
differences... e.g. how come function definitions are between 'def' and
'end'?
Because they didn't follow convention... *HAHAHA* oh my, I think I just
pee'd myself.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
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 'ShakeItBaby.class.php';
return true;
}
return false;
}
.
__autoloadRegisterCallback('myAutoloadCallback');
.
$shaker = new ShakeItBaby();
This way, multiple frameworks and project requirements for autoload wouldn't
clash. If one of the autoload callbacks returns true that would be it.
Otherwise the next autoload callback would be called, and so on.
The problem with the current implementation is that if you get some piece of
code that uses __autoload and you are using __autoload too, you'll have to
either patch that piece of code (if the piece of code is a framework,
things will get much more complicated when updating to the next version) or
patch your own code, or just make a promise not to use __autoload (my current
choice... just in case) or not to use pieces of code that use __autoload.
Bottom line, I hate it.
Something similar applies to the set_error_handling function, anyone can
overwrite your error handling and you can overwrite the error handling of
anyone. I hate it also, so I rather check the return value of functions,
and/or use exceptions for custom error handling.
I don't see why autoload and error handling can't be implemented in a
stack-like way, returning false from the callback moves to the next error
handler / autoloader, returning true ends the handler search process...
though this is more of a question to be made to the interlals list (b...
can't face their karma yet).
Anyway... the more PHP approaches OOP and gets OOP features, the more it can
be done through design patterns such as the Registry/Singleton/etc... and the
more Exceptions are used for PECL extensions, and this seems the trend for
the future of PHP.
Regards,
Rob(inet)
Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
| TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 |
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | MSN Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SKYPE: bestplace
| Web: bestplace.biz | Web: seo-diy.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
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 'ShakeItBaby.class.php';
return true;
}
return false;
}
.
__autoloadRegisterCallback('myAutoloadCallback');
.
$shaker = new ShakeItBaby();
This way, multiple frameworks and project requirements for autoload
wouldn't clash. If one of the autoload callbacks returns true that would
be it. Otherwise the next autoload callback would be called, and so on.
The problem with the current implementation is that if you get some piece
of code that uses __autoload and you are using __autoload too, you'll have
to either patch that piece of code (if the piece of code is a framework,
things will get much more complicated when updating to the next version) or
patch your own code, or just make a promise not to use __autoload (my
current choice... just in case) or not to use pieces of code that use
__autoload. Bottom line, I hate it.
as eric pointed out earlier, thats what spl_autoload_register is for;
http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.spl-autoload-register.php
-nathan
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 sound like this stuff is new or something. Lisp and other functional languages have had it for decades. Even JavaScript has it. Your analogy is also way off... ask any person without legs if they think about walking. These features of which you speak, someone thought of them (walking) long before they were implemented into a language (legs). But just because you think of walking and implement legs to do so, doesn't mean you can't think of flying, swimming, teleporting, etc. None of which require legs. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 dialog dynamically. it's good because the same simple JS library can handle any number of use cases, and my main page with the JS libraries load only once, ajax does the rest of stuff, so I could not change the class definition for the separate cases. but on server side, why not throw everything you might need in the class definition? greets, Zoltán Németh -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 something similar, when I
assign the action functions of the buttons of a modal dialog
dynamically. it's good because the same simple JS library can handle any
number of use cases, and my main page with the JS libraries load only
once, ajax does the rest of stuff, so I could not change the class
definition for the separate cases.
but on server side, why not throw everything you might need in the class
definition?
javascript has this neat concept of execution context. so a single function
can work w/ any 'class' or more precisely, any object.
a = {d : 5};
b = {d : 6};
function c() { alert(this.d); }
c.apply(a);
c.apply(b);
quite interesting.
-nathan
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 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 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? Your analogy is also way off... ask any person without legs if they think about walking. 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 using the same logic: My Mustang doesn't have 4-wheel drive so I don't often think much about taking it through the creeks and woods by my house like my old man and I do in his Bronco that does have 4-wheel drive. A person who has never climbed a really steep hill or ran through a waist-high creek in a 4-wheel drive auto might think such a thing impossible if they were unaware of 4-wheel drive. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
-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, 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 'ShakeItBaby.class.php';
return true;
}
return false;
}
.
__autoloadRegisterCallback('myAutoloadCallback');
.
$shaker = new ShakeItBaby();
This way, multiple frameworks and project requirements for autoload
wouldn't clash. If one of the autoload callbacks returns true that
would
be it. Otherwise the next autoload callback would be called, and so on.
The problem with the current implementation is that if you get some piece
of code that uses __autoload and you are using __autoload too, you'll
have
to either patch that piece of code (if the piece of code is a
framework,
things will get much more complicated when updating to the next version)
or
patch your own code, or just make a promise not to use __autoload (my
current choice... just in case) or not to use pieces of code that use
__autoload. Bottom line, I hate it.
as eric pointed out earlier, thats what spl_autoload_register is for;
http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.spl-autoload-register.php
-nathan
I know, I was talking about the old/regular __autoload feature. You need PHP
5 for spl_autoload_register... but having all PHP 5's nice OOP features, you
probably want to code a class/file/function/resource loader class (like ZF
does) which can do much more. For PHP 4, you are stuck. But anyway, PHP 4 is
dying... or seems to be.
And don't speak about SPL, I had the worst of disappointments with
ArrayObject... since then I got divorced with it (probably will marry it again
in the future, my ancestors are French, you know French people are
passionate... and they like cooking too).
Now, what about set_error_handler? Maybe it's something to discuss in it's own
thread, I don't know.
Anyway, anyway, anyway must get back to regular work :(
See you later,
Rob(inet)
Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 |
TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 |
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | MSN Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SKYPE: bestplace |
Web: bestplace.biz | Web: seo-diy.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 using the same logic: My Mustang doesn't have 4-wheel drive so I don't often think much about taking it through the creeks and woods by my house like my old man and I do in his Bronco that does have 4-wheel drive. A person who has never climbed a really steep hill or ran through a waist-high creek in a 4-wheel drive auto might think such a thing impossible if they were unaware of 4-wheel drive. LOL well said. Aschwin Wesselius -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 ability to dynamically add a method to an object at runtime which you highlighted earlier. -nathan
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 an object at runtime which you highlighted earlier. -1 for not recognizing a rhetorical question. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
-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 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 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? Your analogy is also way off... ask any person without legs if they think about walking. 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 using the same logic: My Mustang doesn't have 4-wheel drive so I don't often think much about taking it through the creeks and woods by my house like my old man and I do in his Bronco that does have 4-wheel drive. A person who has never climbed a really steep hill or ran through a waist-high creek in a 4-wheel drive auto might think such a thing impossible if they were unaware of 4-wheel drive. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ PHP has REAL-programming capabilities, that's why some *cool* functional but still pragmatic features like traits are being discussed on the internals list. PHP's success has its roots in raw pragmatism, easy to learn, easy to deal with. Still fast and OO capable. When RoR starts becoming a REAL PHP competitor, I'll think of learning it and pushing it into my company. Right now, I can only say that PHP is getting better and better. You may miss a lot of features you find in other languages, but PHP features get the job done. Regards, Rob Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION 5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 | TEL 954-607-4296 | FAX 954-337-2695 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | MSN Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SKYPE: bestplace | Web: bestplace.biz | Web: seo-diy.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 functional language capabilities built in. Yes, but some of your diatribe was originally directed my way. And this stuff certainly isn't new to me. 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? I'm sorry you lost context... try and stick with the program in the future. It's not terribly difficult to follow a thread. Your analogy is also way off... ask any person without legs if they think about walking. Here, let me dumb-it-down a bit: A. you're so considerate... but really, there's no need, I'm sure I can understand things well beyond your own capabilities. 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. You're chasing your tail here. That would be true of any language. And since such meta programming capabilities exist in other languages, obviously they were thought up at some point when they didn't exist at all. One need not know of something to be able to invent it... see how that works. I could dumb it down for you if you want. A different example using the same logic: My Mustang doesn't have 4-wheel drive so I don't often think much about taking it through the creeks and woods by my house like my old man and I do in his Bronco that does have 4-wheel drive. A person who has never climbed a really steep hill or ran through a waist-high creek in a 4-wheel drive auto might think such a thing impossible if they were unaware of 4-wheel drive. Or, and I would consider this the more likely response, they would dream up such a thing if it didn't already exist and was WANTED/NEEDED. Your chicken egg logic is completely invalid as illustrated by the current state of innovation versus what existed when life began. We innovate and create to fill the void. We don't use because the void was magically filled with solutions. The millions of PHP developers happily programming without Ruby or RoR obviously don't NEED all of these meta things of which you speak. Some may WANT, and maybe they will move to a language that supports them, but that's a preference, not a requirement. You do injustice to the many, many intelligent people out there that intentionally choose PHP over another language that has the features you of which you speak. You dismiss their experience, reasoning, and preference and presume yourself superior... get over yourself. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 capabilities, in particular the ability to dynamically add a method to an object at runtime which you highlighted earlier. -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. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 missing PHP language feature are you referring to as it? functional capabilities, in particular the ability to dynamically add a method to an object at runtime which you highlighted earlier. -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. im must be lacking the features to comprehend rhetorical questions. however, having learned of their existence, im not quite certain im ready to invest the time to add them to my persona, albiet any superiority they might exhibit :) -nathan
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 daily basis. A. you're so considerate... but really, there's no need, I'm sure I can understand things well beyond your own capabilities. There's been no indication of that up to now. You're chasing your tail here. That would be true of any language. And since such meta programming capabilities exist in other languages, obviously they were thought up at some point when they didn't exist at all. One need not know of something to be able to invent it... see how that works. I could dumb it down for you if you want. You're confusing language designer with language user. A language user can only use what features he has been provided to use. You just keep beating that PHP rock with that PHP hammer. Pay no attention when someone utters the words better or easier. Why not just go ahead and make yourself a mail filter too.. put [EMAIL PROTECTED] right at the top. of which you speak. You dismiss their experience, reasoning, and preference and presume yourself superior... What reasoning? I saw a 5 minute tutorial on Rails, I didn't understand some of it, therefore Ruby sucks? That's not reasoning and it certainly doesn't gain one any experience, unless laziness recently became a virtue. get over yourself. You first. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 rhetorical question responses mean jack. -1 for thinking +2 exists. *Yawn* Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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. -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack. -1 for thinking +2 exists. *Yawn* -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you) Aschwin Wesselius
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 see on the Rails list looking to expand their tool set on a daily basis. 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. A. you're so considerate... but really, there's no need, I'm sure I can understand things well beyond your own capabilities. There's been no indication of that up to now. I try not to flaunt it... humility teaches volumes. I could send you a care package if you want... I'll even throw in some T.P. to help you clean up your act. You're chasing your tail here. That would be true of any language. And since such meta programming capabilities exist in other languages, obviously they were thought up at some point when they didn't exist at all. One need not know of something to be able to invent it... see how that works. I could dumb it down for you if you want. You're confusing language designer with language user. A language user can only use what features he has been provided to use. I'm not confusing anything. A language user can propose features, and even implement them via another language to add them to the language in question. In open source there's plenty of overlap between language designer and language user. You just keep beating that PHP rock with that PHP hammer. Pay no attention when someone utters the words better or easier. Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off better and easier. After reviewing, looking at the language, trying some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a fetus, that I preferred PHP. Why not just go ahead and make yourself a mail filter too.. put [EMAIL PROTECTED] right at the top. But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda? of which you speak. You dismiss their experience, reasoning, and preference and presume yourself superior... What reasoning? I saw a 5 minute tutorial on Rails, I didn't understand some of it, therefore Ruby sucks? That's not reasoning and it certainly doesn't gain one any experience, You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5 minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions. Didn't you see the episode of Cheers about what happens when you assume? unless laziness recently became a virtue. Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation. Do more with less. That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but not blindly. get over yourself. You first. Been there, done that. Now it's your turn. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 cheek and providing you with an answer to your rhetorical question. -1 for thinking rhetorical question responses mean jack. -1 for thinking +2 exists. *Yawn* -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you) You're new around here right? Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 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. *Yawn* -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you) You're new around here right? Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
-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* tedious. Will you be so kind not to use taboo words to hit other people on this list? Thanks, Rob(inet) PS: Middle-posting is cool! 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 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. *Yawn* -5 for not keeping this kind of childish behavior of the list (both of you) You're new around here right? Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 to learn anything new since I already know PHP. Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell even uses animated gifs any more? Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off better and easier. After reviewing, looking at the language, trying some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a fetus, that I preferred PHP. Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving the discussion at the differently preferred opinion level. Sounds like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the same. But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda? I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came standard with my inquisitive mind. Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up with example code. You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5 minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions. Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL? I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation. Do more with less. Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious. /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but not blindly. If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development, then yeah I guess so. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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. Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP. Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell even uses animated gifs any more? Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off better and easier. After reviewing, looking at the language, trying some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a fetus, that I preferred PHP. Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving the discussion at the differently preferred opinion level. Sounds like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the same. But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda? I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came standard with my inquisitive mind. Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up with example code. You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5 minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions. Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL? I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation. Do more with less. Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious. /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but not blindly. If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development, then yeah I guess so. I didn't want to have to do this, but read some of Terry Chay's work on Ruby. There are plenty of people who just prefer PHP to RoR. Some people like Java, some people like .NET, etc. Get over yourself. You come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better? What did you expect? It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. The community is insane! This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny. http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml -- Ray Hauge www.primateapplications.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 jobs done. Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP. Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell even uses animated gifs any more? Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off better and easier. After reviewing, looking at the language, trying some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a fetus, that I preferred PHP. Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving the discussion at the differently preferred opinion level. Sounds like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the same. But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda? I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came standard with my inquisitive mind. Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up with example code. You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5 minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions. Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL? I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation. Do more with less. Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious. /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but not blindly. If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development, then yeah I guess so. I didn't want to have to do this, but read some of Terry Chay's work on Ruby. There are plenty of people who just prefer PHP to RoR. Some people like Java, some people like .NET, etc. Get over yourself. You come to a PHP mailing list to proclaim that RoR is better? What did you expect? It's people like you that turn a lot of people off to Ruby. The community is insane! This was a great read. If nothing else he's funny. http://terrychay.com/blog/article/php-ruby-evil-good.shtml One last link, because this one is the one that has caused the most controversy (for lack of a better word). http://terrychay.com/blog/article/is-ruby-the-dog-and-php-the-dogfood.shtml -- Ray Hauge www.primateapplications.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 use tools that get jobs done. Translation: I'm too lazy to learn anything new since I already know PHP. Languages come and go. There's a reason why we no longer need a cgi-bin and Perl to make an animated gif. Going further, who the hell even uses animated gifs any more? Hmmm, in the spirit of your lazy comment... I actually learned to do web coding using C code, then Perl, then I moved onto PHP. I have nothing against learning new things... I'm constantly learning... I even learned I don't like Ruby. Ummm, I originally looked into Ruby and RoR because someone spouted off better and easier. After reviewing, looking at the language, trying some code, reading other peoples blogs, magazine articles, searching the web... I decided, using the brain I've been nurturing since I was a fetus, that I preferred PHP. Great, just so long as we're clear on the point that Ruby is better than PHP, just not for you personally. I'm totally fine with leaving the discussion at the differently preferred opinion level. Sounds like a cop-out but I'm ok with your holding that position all the same. It's not a cop out. It's a choice. Whether Ruby is better than PHP remains to be seen. There are many measurements of better. Ruby is slower than PHP, therefore PHP is better. That's just one measurement. So we're not clear at all on this point. But the original discussion was more geared towards personal preference concepts of better. PHP is better for me, because I like PHP more than I like Ruby. I happen to like butterscotch more than I like licorice too... does that make butterscotch better than licorice? Yes of course it does... to anyone that like butterscotch more :) But then who would confront your rhetoric and propaganda? I do exhibit a bit of rhetoric at times, but in my defense it came standard with my inquisitive mind. Conversely I do not know what propaganda you speak of. I've never once made a specific claim in favor of Ruby that I couldn't back up with example code. You're on a PHP list, we don't want your Ruby code here. You're assuming that we choose PHP over RoR based on having seen a 5 minute tutorial. Wow, aren't you just full of assumptions. Ok then, how many projects did you pursue before giving up and concluding Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn? URL? You still don't get it. I didn't decide Rails or Ruby was too much effort to learn. I decided I didn't like Ruby, and I didn't like Rails so I didn't bother going further. Why should I work with something I don't like? I got into programming for the sheer joy of programming and problem solving... in the spirit of that, I will damn well sheerly enjoy my programming and problem solving with a language I enjoy working with. Just because you don't enjoy working with it doesn't mean everyone shares that sentiment. I will point out it's probably a good thing this same lack of effort on your part did not occur when you began to learn PHP, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Lack of effort? LOL, I put effort where I deem it useful. Why put effort towards a fad that you don't even like. I'd be less of a person if I jumped on every bandwagon just to be a crowd pleaser. I'm no sheep, I follow my own path whether you like it or not. Interestingly, laziness is one of the biggest motivators of innovation. Do more with less. Well that sure as hell ain't PHP. ROFL. More with less, using PHP, hilarious. Seems to me you keep claiming Ruby has all the l33t features. Therefore by using PHP I MUST be doing more with less. /me points to SPL and laughs his ass off I don't use SPL. That SHOULD be part of any developers mandate... but not blindly. If by blindly you mean fun, fast, test-driven, productive development, then yeah I guess so. Blindly would be those people who jumped on the RoR bandwagon and are now arse deep in water as their ship sinks. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 identifier names are too long is silly (greg). get an editor w/ code completion if its that big of an issue for you. o wow, my identifiers are smaller, that makes my language easier... not in my book, i actually prefer longer names for variables when the terms are easier to understand that way. its a technique for making code self documenting, and if i were a ruby programmer i would use it there as well. there is a balance that needs to be struck for any highly successful api, obviously shorter names can be a bit easier to remember, at least to remember what the names are, but if RecursiveIteratorIterator were RII, i would probly be like RII, hmm.., i remember the name but not what its for; so id still end up going back to the manual every time any way. the best apis are ones that are so consistent and pragmatic, client developers can remember most of it w/o going back to the manual and that includes identifiers, their respective parameter signatures and the semantics. i would venture to say that where spl has some long identifiers for class names (which i dont consider an issue) the api is much more consistent than the standard php api, so in all i consider it better than the standard api. the standard api inverts arguments for example in array functions. if all of these functions took an array as the first argument, i wouldnt have to check the docs every time or switch the argument order after the script blows up the first time. also there are multiple naming conventions used as you can see, using underscores, abbreviating / smashing into one complete term, and camel case (which does appear to be almost exclusively for classes [so thats not so bad]). its not the end of the world, but its also not consistent like spl. i know spl is much younger than php itself so the evolution of its api has not been drawn out over many years. thats probly one reason why the standard api is a bit inconsistent, but for w/e reason there it is. the spl api is cleaner than the standard one. int *array_push* ( array $array , mixed $var [, mixed $... ] ) bool *in_array* ( mixed $needle , array $haystack [, bool $strict ] ) string *bcadd* ( string $left_operand , string $right_operand [, int $scale] ) *DOMCharacterData-appendData()*look at string functions for more examples if you want (http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.strings.php) -nathan
Re: [PHP] What's wrong the __autoload()?
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 pure idiocy. 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. I actually prefer to use a site prepend and append, then in the prepend file is where I throw all my requires and such. pretty much takes care of any learning curve since with the prepended file doing the heavy lifting. But by doing so you're including a lot of code you almost certainly don't use on every page. That can pointlessly consume resources on a busy server. Actually, I do use it on every page, as it handles all the user authentication checks. ;) I use __autoload (and for new projects the SPL version) because I know that anyone who can't get it within 5 minutes is not someone I want to work with. I gotta agree with you there, I don't limit things because someone can't get it within a reasonable amount of time. Not using language features because some developers might not know about it is going to restrict you to the sort of instruction set you get in Assembler. I've been working with PHP for a very long time and I certainly don't claim to know everything about it or about every feature it has. Restrict your code in that way and you'll create a slow unmaintainable mess. I hate unmaintanable code, it gets REALLY difficult to handle. I go through and re-write my old code as I learn more new tricks with the newer versions of PHP. After 7 years I am still learning new things with it. Wolf -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
