The simple solution to the following would be to provide a bibliography. If every example on the pdf came from a non Rev site, and was per the PHP example, ie an actual site that teaches how to write <insert programming language here> then it would remove any accusation that Rev was intentionally writing poor code comparisons.
my 2 clams On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Kevin Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/12/2009 20:41, "Andre Garzia" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Actually I think some of the comments have a point. That language > > comparision pdf is misleading. Even I could write better code than that > in > > those languages. I would suggest people on runrev would change that pdf > to > > present optimum code in C++/C#/JAVA and the like, like, very professional > > code and see how well Rev stacks against it, even if they are all one > > liners, Rev will be more readable and thus win points. If you post crappy > > code, the users of those languages will clearly recognize the pdf as a > bad > > practice and have a bad impression of the language. > > The > question we were asking was "Which language is going to be easier in day to > day use"? For example, the code on the PHP comparison was based on an > example posted on a site that *teaches* how to write PHP. So clearly its of > a standard that is used in the real world. If you're an expert coding in > PHP > every day you can shorten it. Same with the revTalk example as it happens. > > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
