On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Gunther Birznieks wrote: > You would think if they want an anal scripting language they would move > to python not PHP. :)
Python isn't anal--it's a very clean, interesting, flexible language on par with perl--perhaps superior in some ways and not as good in others but, overall, on a similar scale. In respect to the article, to me, anyway, most of the arguments weren't particularly compelling from my outside viewpoint. The one point they made was true--PHP was developed specifically for the web and doesn't have the wide variability of perl (they seem to equate extensive flexibility, as a trouble point leading to great variance in the code -- stylistically and logically). I don't think this problem is neccessarily eliminated comprehensively by switching to a crappy language like PHP. Some standardization could be achieved via coding guidelines, approved practices, code reviews etc. while still retaining the power and flexibility of a perl. Many of the problems they associated with perl aren't neccessarily eliminated by using PHP, including the issues with code variance. They still stated that perl would fuel many things on the backend, though, so they haven't gone completely mad. -mj > John Saylor wrote: > > >Hi > > > >( 02.10.30 03:22 -0500 ) Perrin Harkins: > > > > > >>They didn't make their decision on performance though. They seem to > >>have been most influenced by the idea that perl allows too much > >>flexibility in coding style, although I can't see how PHP is going to > >>help with that. > >> > >> > > > >Wow, I'd like what *they* had for lunch! > > > >Quasi-seriously, as someone who has had to maintain mountains of bad > >perl code, I know TMTOWTDI can have a downside; but the openness of the > >language is what has lead to its greatness ... > > > > > > >
