Re: [PHP-DEV] [UPDATE] NGScan

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Whee.

I mainly just archive this list and scan it at intervals,
but someone drew my attention to this thread.  I am not a
member of the PHP Group, and barely a contributor to PHP,
but I *do* have some experience in working in groups like
this, and *lots* of experience in being abrasive.  So I am
going to pitch in my .5euro and people can like it, lump it,
flame me, or whatever.

First, everyone should step back, take a deep breath,
consider whether the adrenaline level is healthy, and
think about how big a part of their LIVES (you know, with
significant others, family, pets, careers, ..) this is
and ought to be.

Next, consider that exchanges in email have a tendency to
escalate like an uncontrolled fission situation in twenty
kilos of U235.  Unlike in face-to-face confrontations, whilst
you are considering and writing your incensed reply, the
other party is unable to offer rebuttals, and there is no
body language component.  In essence, each takes turns up
on a soapbox, and whomever is not on the soapbox at the moment
gets to fume and experiment with hypertension, and a common
result is an explosive release of that tension and bile when
s/he gets to mount the box.  In other words, it is NOT a
natural discourse.  Allowances should be made.

Now, to my personal (and probably flameworthy) impressions.
I read this entire thread out of the blue, with no history
of nor opinion about the technical issues involved.

First, Zeev: I consider you to be 'way off base here. Regardless
of what has gone before, pointing out (what you consider to be)
someone else's inadequacies does not obviate your own.  Do
you admit that your posts are nothing but your opinion and may
not be reflective of reality?  No, you challenge others to
consider that you 'might be right for once.'  Why?  Do you think
people consistently think you are *not* right?  If so, why
might that be?  You come across as though you are omniscient;
do you say 'IMHO, having another scanner is stupid'?  No, you
say 'having another scanner is stupid, and if you think about it
you will see that I am right'.  Boy, that would sure rub me the
wrong way!  One of the fundamental forces behind open development
is the 'scratch an itch' aspect.  Sascha apparently has an itch,
has been waiting for something you apparently said you were going
to do to come along and scratch it, but has given up and scratched
it himself.  It is NOT for you, nor anyone else, to say that he
should not do so.  No-one here is entitled to speak in absolutes,
only opinions.

Next, Sascha: I think the offended dignity pose is
counterproductive.  If you think people's accusations
about you are inaccurate, say so -- do NOT counter'attack'.
Address them rationally, and maybe consider that they may be
right to whatever extent.  We none of us can be completely
objective about ourselves, and certainly we cannot tell someone
that his/her subjective opinion of us is mistaken.  All we can
do is evaluate criticism (hopefully constructive, but that
seems to be vanishingly small content in this thread!) with
an open mind, and either acknowledge it as possibly being accurate,
or else propose our own perceptions of the meaning of the
same data.  I personally have been irritated by postings by
just about everyone, you included, but I generally swallow it
because the technical merits outweigh my subjective perception.

Both of you: I suggest that you back off and apologise.  Ad
hominem attacks are generally not productive.  Make constructive
criticism.  Zeev, perhaps if you explain *why* an abstraction is
stupid, rather than loftily saying it is IOTTMCO (intuitively obvious
to the most casual observer), Sascha and others will agree with
you.  Or perhaps they will point out flaws in your argument.
Sascha, consider and carefully review the remarks about your
attitude.  You may not agree with them, but *something* has
led to this pass, and you need to accept that and either see
about addressing the cause or else publicly acknowledge that
you are sorry but 'it is what it is' and you cannot or will not
change.  And in your turn explain why you think an abstraction
*is* a good idea.

I regard both of you as incredibly technically talented, and
value your contributions.  Can we please find a quieter means
of productive coexistence, even if mutual loathing is required?

Okey, everyone can flame me, he-who-butts-in-uninvited, now.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/
"Apache Server for Dummies"http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Apache Server Unleashed"  http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PHP-DEV] FW: Response.redirect!!!

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Sent to the Apache contact address.  I told him I was forwarding
it, but that he might not get a reply if his message was considered
too rude.. :-)

- Forwarded message from Tomas Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: "Tomas Marklund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Response.redirect!!!
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:19:53 +0100
Thread-Topic: Response.redirect!!!
Thread-Index: AcG64tQ8eiZG89jOSfOaHiq6BNlW2Q==

Why can't you program the most wanting function of them all, and the
only thing that is better in ASP than PHP!!
THE Response.redirect command!?++

The header is to difficult to use!!!

/Tomas Marklund

- End forwarded message -

-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] Netscape cookies rather than RFC2109 or RFC2965?

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Is there any particular reason why setcookie() uses the long-
deprecated Netscape cookie syntax?  Would anyone object to
my enhancing it to at least allow another argument specifying
the syntax (Netscape Set-Cookie, RFC2109 Set-Cookie, or
RFC2965 Set-Cookie2)?
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

* On 2001-09-07 at 23:06,
  Joey Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> So let's be the first ones to get our heads on straight and get rid of
> this ridiculous concept. It is, IMHO, one of the worst ideas in the
> history of the world...I'd really rather be reading perl regular
> expressions than this.

Um, it has been around since sometime in version 3.  Have you
noticed it before?  Has it bothered you?

I think at this point it should be considered a legacy exception.
Getting rid of it is going to break a lot of existing *user* scripts.
Doing that to them for the sake of language elegance hardly sounds
like a good idea to me..
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

* On 2001-09-07 at 23:40,
  Joey Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote the following to PHP...:
> 
> > Um, it has been around since sometime in version 3.  Have you
> > noticed it before?  Has it bothered you?
> 
> Yes, it bothers me.

But has it bothered you before this discussion, is what I meant.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

* On 2001-09-07 at 23:42,
  Joey Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> No, I haven't, but let me get this straight:
> 
> You're saying that if something is a bad idea, that the more often it is
> used, the "less bad" [1] it becomes?

Speaking only for myself and not Chuck, I would say, "This is
a decision that was made 2.5 years ago.  It may have been
the wrong decision then, but it is a waste of time second-guessing
it now.  Keeping similar things from happening is far more
important than trying to revise history."  That is what I
would say. :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

* On 2001-09-08 at 08:34,
  Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> Not really.  You only have to conform if you believe that PHP is not a 
> standalone language.  You're also assuming that most of PHP's userbase has 
> C background, which is usually not true.  Among those coming from C 
> background, usually they have a limited one, and would not be used to 
> gettext() aliases.

This sort of argument keeps coming up, but Zeev is the lucky one
who sets me off.. :-)

People are very free to speak about what *others* expect.  Unless
you are one of them, or have concrete evidence, then such remarks
are nothing more than speculation, and the electrons that conveyed
them are already doing other things. :-)  For instance: Zeev, did
you come to PHP from C?  Did/do you use gettext in other languages?
If the answer to the latter, at least, is 'no' then I think the
experience of people like Rasmus and Chuck -- who *do* use gettext
a lot, and in other languages -- carries a helluva lot more weight
than your speculation and that of other non-gettext-users.

Inconveniencing your long-time users in the name of language purity
is, IMHO, just plain stupid.

> I'm not sure why you're failing 
> to see the fundamental difference between a function that is complex and 
> perhaps requires prior knowledge, and an entry that obscures the 
> *namespace* of PHP.

And I personally am not sure why the 'get rid of "_"' faction is
failing to see that doing so would be a language REGRESSION, not
a step forward.  Please tell me of some examples in other languages
in which long-time warts with thousands of users have been removed
in later versions in the name of 'language purity.'  If you can name
some, cool; I will be less ignorant, and might reconsider my
position.  Otherwise, d'you think PHP should be *that* kind of
groundbreaker? :-)

Look, I think there is no question that removing '_()' is going
to BREAK some users.  I do not see how anyone can consider that a
Good Thing.  I suggest that it be left in, and documented
more clearly, and the documentation updated to say 'the use of
gettext() is highly recommended and preferred over that of _()'.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 
> Ken - see my point? :)

I have seen it all along.  I just do not think that removing
it is better than leaving it forever but discouraging it.

And you cannot say that 'ugliness is not a metric' for anyone
except yourself.  Multiple people have brought that aspect up, so
obviously it matters to *them*.  Please do not dismiss those
inputs unless you think they do not count, in which case I
suppose we should just accept that you are inflexible and
consider your opinion better than anyone else's. :-D
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 
> >   Did/do you use gettext in other languages?
> 
> No
> 
> >If the answer to the latter, at least, is 'no' then I think the
> >experience of people like Rasmus and Chuck -- who *do* use gettext
> >a lot, and in other languages -- carries a helluva lot more weight
> >than your speculation and that of other non-gettext-users.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.  The issue here isn't about people who use
> gettext.  It's about those who don't.

Eh?  So you do not mind making a feature harder for the people
who use it, just because it makes more sense to the people who
do not? ???

> Moral - the obscurity of such a feature should be determined by
> the general public, and *NOT* by the ones who use it.

Okey, determine that it is obscure.  Determining that and removing
it are two different things.  I do not mind if you label it as
obscure; I *do* mind you, who never use it, making it much more
difficult for the people who do.  Live and let live, don't try
to force people into your mould.

> Did you look at the deprecation method I suggested?

Yes.  It boils down to taking something away from your users.
Now or later, that is still what it is doing.

Your argument seems to be that _() is obscure for people who
happen to come across it, or have to suddenly maintain something
that uses it.  The userland function solution does not change
that.  My opinion: let them deal with it.  They are and probably
will remain a minority compared to those who actually actively use it.
How long has it taken you, one of the in-depth-est PHP developers,
to notice this?  The effort required for them to find out what it
does, compared to that required by current users to change the
way they work, seems very heavily weighted toward the latter.
MHO, of course.

When I encountered this whilst tech-editing PHP Essential Reference,
my reaction was, 'Cool!  What a low-impact way to do I18N!'  And
I kid you not, that is really how I felt, and feel.

> The problem with this whole discussion is that people are mixing
> two issues:
> (a) Is it an ok thing that _() is a PHP function

I say that it is perhaps unfortunate, but okey.

> (b) What can we do about removing it

That only comes up if people answer 'no' to (a).

Hey, I am not a member of the PHP group.  I am just a user.
Never mind that I have been writing software for more than
a quarter-century.  You guys are going to do whatever you're
going to do, and the only effect my differing opinion is likely
to have is to piss everybody off.  So I'll stop arguing and
let you get on with it.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Chuck Hagenbuch wrote:
> 
> Zeev: were it being added now, no, I wouldn't argue for it.
> My argument is based on it having been there for years and
> being in heavy use in some people's code.

Likewise MHO.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Woah

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Joey Smith wrote:
> 
> Ken, I whole-heartedly apologize for my rude statments...it is
> simply a measure of my frustration with _() that led to me behave so
> poorly, and I hope you'll forgive me.

Thank you for apologising.  Forgiven. :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PHP-DEV] Re: _

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

* On 2001-09-10 at 23:09,
  Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> >   Please do not dismiss those
> >inputs unless you think they do not count, in which case I
> >suppose we should just accept that you are inflexible and
> >consider your opinion better than anyone else's. :-D
> 
> You surprise me again with this sting

It isn't a sting, it's a good-natured poke.  See the smilie?

I'm not arguing any more.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PHP-DEV] Re: _

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

* On 2001-09-10 at 23:18,
  Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> 
> The smilie does make it a good natured poke, but at least as far as my 
> email parser works, it still means that you mean it, and that stings :)

Well, I *don't* mean it, and I apologise.  No ad hominem intended,
even though it may have looked like it. :-(
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]