Hello Mark,
I'm with you in general, and the comparison is also between professional
product against PHP as a Open Source.
As a basis, we get already compared with also expensive prof. products
like cfm, but now it's our turn to improve our stuff so that we don't leave
ourself open for such a reference.
And indeed, we have enough to do, since PHP gets more popular, e.g.
1.) Several extension-intros have "only Linux"-wordings, like:
"....you must compile php with xxx support by using the --with-xxx option."
Now imagine a Win-user, who just wants to make his Web dynamic:
"What is compile?"
2.) The 1st array_flip()-example:
$trans = array_flip ($trans);
$original = strtr ($str, $trans);
The same user: "What is $trans? What has $str to look like, and what will
$original be?"
To make a long story short: Now we have to fill the gap between the best
Open Source documentation for a specific target-audience to a consistent
documentation for mixed environments, and a mixed audience.
Best regards,
Thomas
Mark Kronsbein wrote:
> Thomas wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > BTW: Have you seen the bad reference for the PHP-DOC in relation to asp,
> > etc. in the comparison between WebScriptLangs in "Internet Professionell"? I
> > hope it doesn't get worse, if you really act with everybody like me.
>
> Ive seen it. It was not the first Article which Marco Zierl wrote about
> PHP.
> Though it was not the first which was nearly 90% wrong. Dont belive
> everything
> they write.
>
> IMHO the Documentation of PHP is one of the best Documentations of
> Opensource Projects Ive ever seen.
>
> Just my 0,02 DM ;)
>
> Mark
>
> --
> German Gabber Network @ http://www.gabber.de
> Infos und Tips zu PHP http://www.php-homepage.de
