On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:17:40PM +0000, Dave Wilson wrote: > > What this boils down to, is that > > a) I don't believe that scalable and maintainable sites can be easily > > written in PHP > > I addressed this. It is because you suck, not the language. I thought > people liked perl because of it's flexibility.
Shock move: Dave Wilson tells someone else that their coding sucks. > > b) I don't believe that the general coding standard in the PHP binaries > > is as high as is necessary to survive on the modern Internet > > And you've read them, as well as perl. I'm impressed -- how old are you? > As someone who's debugged, modified, and written extensions for PHP, I'd > say it's one of the nicer programs around to work on. Fundamental > vulnerabilities are not uncommon -- in fact, you're guaranteed at least > one fuckup a month these days. PHP's POST handling vulnerability was > such a thing. This doesn't mean you loose all confidence in it. As someone who's "debugged, modified, and written extensions for PHP", you seemed to have an inordinate amount of trouble coding one simple Linux Users Group web site. I'd give your opinion on this more respect if you hadn't made a total pigs arse of the BLUG website. In fact, didn't you leave it sitting broken and unusable for months on end. The only reason you "fixed it" is because you were publicly berated and badgered. In response to the public badgering, you put up something that half worked. Eleven odd months later, is it actually working yet? If I remember it correctly, you broke a perfectly servicable set of static web pages so you could write it from scratch in PHP. What percentage of your proposed new features did you actually implement? I realise that none of this is relevant to whether PHP is inferior to perl. It does however relate directly to your qualifications to pontificate on the subject. andrew -- Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) And to think you laughed when your high-school yearbook named you Most Likely To Be Responsible For The Extinction Of The Frigate Bird.
