On Saturday 03 December 2005 01:18, Alon Altman wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Shlomi Fish wrote: > >>>> but some people seem to > >>>> like ugly "informative" websites. > >>> > >>> I like informative websites, but I don't think they should be ugly. If > >>> the website is ugly it's because no-one moved a muscle to change the > >>> fact. > >> > >> Ram offered his help but was sent from one person to the other cause one > >> don't have time and the other don't like PHP/frames/icons/links... > > > > No he was not. He was sent to me. I told him I'd rather that he won't do > > his site in PHP, because it was unnecessary in this case. So Ram > > automatically deduced that the HTML should be written by hand, and as a > > result asked me if he can do it with frames. However, frames are Evil > > ( http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil ) and I told him to > > avoid it. I said that he should generate the web-site's HTML instead, > > using a pre-rendering program, and after consulting with Alon, it was > > decided that we _will_ allow him to use PHP. (Due to his cluelessness) > > However, we did not hear from him since. > > I'm sorry to hear that. If Ram would have contacted the board (or at > least me) I would have told him that I do not support Shlomi's religous > beleifs about what's evil and what's not.
I don't think PHP would be completely unsuitable for this. I just think that it would be a better idea to have a pre-generated static HTML site (which, BTW, can be done with PHP). The problem is that once I told Ram that PHP would be sub-optimal, he immediately thought he would need to write the HTML by hand, and then wanted to use frames. And frames *are* Evil. > PHP code could be much cleaner > than the unmaintainable WML mess Shlomi built. A PHP code with the same functionality as my WML "mess" would be just as complicated and "horrible" if not much more. My WML code is not a mess. True, it's complicated and it may be difficult to you to understand, but it is for a reason. I often found code in many languages to be difficult to understand, but I usually was eventually able to understand it enough after time passed. See: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html > In any case, I think that if > the end result is usable and standard-compliant, the web deleoper should > use whatever he feels comfortable with. Including frames??? > When I was asked, I had no problem passing the control on the web site > to Ram as soon as he put a working site up. > I would have helped Ram with the new site, if the new site was better. > >>>> I thinks visitors of the general W2L site could and yet may get a very > >>>> wrong impression about Linux due to look and content of the site. > >>> > >>> Perhaps, but that's what we have now, mainly because only Alon and I > >>> updated it. > >> > >> As I said there were other options that beurocracy scared away (this > >> refers to what you called "eventualy"). > > > > Maybe Ram was scared, but that was his fault. If he were a bit more > > clueful, he would have known that he can generate static HTML using Perl, > > PHP, Web Meta Language (which I'm using), Python or whatever. But he > > obviously thought that the only options were either using PHP on the > > server side or writing HTML by hand. We eventually let him use PHP on the > > server side, but then he did not do anything about it, and even did not > > let us how he felt, so we could have told him he could go ahead. > > I do not share this point of view at all. I think Shlomi is clueless to > ignore the human aspects involved. In particular, it usually better and > easier to use a tool you know well and not learn something new. Yes, but often I have learned a new tool just because someone else I worked with was using it or that I needed to accomplish a task that I heard this tool would be perfect for it. Like Gandhi was attributed to say: "Live like you were going to die tomorrow. Learn like you were going to live forever." Does Ram expect to know PHP exclusively for the rest of his life? Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ 95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the bottom 5%.
