Re: php irony, was Re: webmail

[Andy Wardley]

Chris Devers wrote:
> When is it nice to be a "quick hack language" that's
> "simple and easy", & when does that lead to "the biggest no-no there is"?

Simple and easy quick hack languages are great.  I've got nothing against
PHP or Perl in that respect.  

But for larger projects that you want to be scalable, adaptable, easy to 
customise and maintain, the first rule, or one of the first rules is to
separate application code from presentation code.

In Perl, Ruby, Python or Java, you can choose to be lax and hacky or 
strict and structured.  You can apply the best technique as the situation
demands it.

In PHP you don't get that choice.  It's like you're always stuck in 
lax and hacky mode.  For that reason, I wouldn't recommend it for 
larger projects any more than I would receomment Perl 4.

That's not to say that people haven't written large and high quality systems
in Perl 4 or PHP, but I would suggest that they're the exceptions rather
than the norms.

A

php irony, was Re: webmail

[Chris Devers]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Andy Wardley wrote [and I slightly edited, sorry]:

> $LANG is, or should be, a quick hack language.  The fundamental
> feature of embedding application code directly in presentation markup
> is the biggest no-no there is.  It leads to a poor (or non-existant)
> separation of concerns, typified by spaghetti code programs that are
> all but impossible to read, understand, extend and maintain.
>
> $LANG is quick, simple and easy to use and ideal for basic one or two
> page web hacks.  But for building larger sites or dynamic web
> applications? Definately not!
>
> Alas, that's what most large dynamic web applications seem to be
> written in these days.  Written by your average Joe who wouldn't know
> the difference between good programming and bad, and probably wouldn't
> care much about it if they did :-(


Of course, the irony here is that, when talking to (say) Java people, this
whole argument can get thrown back at Perl as well. Set $LANG to Perl and
this could be a typical "Perl is line noise" boilerplate rant.


Which would make this hypothetical post script --


> PHP is just as bad for much the same reasons.  Used by people who
> don't know any better and don't want to know any better.


-- all the more ironic.


As Greg said, certain things (PM groups, YAPC, etc) have brought a level
of professionalism to Perl that maybe wasn't there before, but still --
these kind of accusations are still made all the time, and as long as
there is prominent bad Perl code out there (I'm trying to avoid saying
Matt Wright's name but whoops it just spilled out) accusations like this
will continue to be made, and not without foundation.

Thrown stones, glass houses, etc.

I find it ironic to hear Perl hackers saying these sorts of things about
PHP. If "quick, simple and easy to use" is such a crime, why are you using
Perl? I mean, I realize I'm not being entirely fair here -- I know that
many or most of the members of this list are much more disciplined than
that -- but still, the essential qualities that you're objecting to are
ones that for a long time have defined Perl & Perl Culture. So what's the
dividing line? When is it nice to be a "quick hack language" that's
"simple and easy", & when does that lead to "the biggest no-no there is"?



-- 
Chris Devers[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Usenet is a co-operative venture, backed by nasty people.
  Follow the standards.
-- Chris Rovers, in the Monastery