You guys make me laugh... :)
(And I really actually mean that in a nice way... that last bit was
quite funny. And yes, size does matter... some don't like it _too_
big.)
But, I digress.
I'm OK with taking this off-list... though I'd rather publicly reply.
Yeah, I meant procedural, not
You guys make me laugh... :)
:-)
(And I really actually mean that in a nice way...
that last bit was
quite funny. And yes, size does matter... some don't
like it _too_
big.)
Damn, just my luck
:-D
As far as AJAX is concerned: yeah, it's a bitch.
I've gotten it to
work
[snip]
it's about our philosophies.
[/snip]
Too bad your article didn't reflect that as well as you might have
liked. And Web 2.0 is a label, the underlying philosophy has been there
for years (before you ever got Dreamweaver to write your first line of
HTML for you). Ajax is a label for a loose
On 19/04/06, Matt Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that PHP is a functional language, and secondly, an OO
language, but I think that you can blend these things better and have
the OO brought to the forefront a bit more.
PHP is not a functional language, it's an imperative language.
On Wed, April 19, 2006 9:42 am, Matt Todd wrote:
Honestly, I'd love to see basic variables be objects, as models of
real world data with properties for the data such as a $number-length
or $word-as_array() giving you letters.
I think you might want to consider using Common Lisp, then.
Cuz
Here's an invitation to take this off-list. I've posted my thoughts
on my (currently design-less and under massive construction
relocation) website.
Direct link to post:
http://s153531379.onlinehome.us/index.php/journal/the-clash-of-the-php-mailing-list-and-the-proverbial-web-2-0-iceberg
Matt Todd wrote:
There's nothing wrong with staying true to the philosophy at all, I
just think that it may well be detrimental in the end. And that is
what I said in the (toilet)paper, that there will be (emphasis on the
eventuality, not on the present actuality) a time that PHP will become
Maybe it is just me, but I think these types of discussions/debates
concerning opposing view points on the direction of web programming is
as imperative to the general PHP community (i.e. this list) as the
dangers of register globals and magic quotes etc
At least more relevant then the
Martin Alterisio El Hombre Gris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Todd wrote:
snip
Have you stop to think what the efficiency cost would be to make
everything an object? We're already suffering much to avoid the waiting
2.5 second it's way too much cutline
On Thursday 20 April 2006 1:18 am, Richard Lynch wrote:
Is 5 longer than 4?
Size doesn't matter. At least that's what I've been told. ;)
--
Joe Henry
www.celebrityaccess.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Thursday 20 April 2006 1:18 am, Richard Lynch
wrote:
Is 5 longer than 4?
Size doesn't matter. At least that's what I've been
told. ;)
--
You've been lied to m8
:-D
--
- The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard.
- Creativity is great, but plagiarism is
Yes, I absolutely agree that Rasmus is awesome and his accomplishments
are far and beyond amazing, but I'm saying that I think that Rasmus is
motivated to stay true to PHP's philosophies and not be willing to
rethink them: that is what I meant by that.
In no way am I saying that Rasmus doesn't
[snip]
Yes, I absolutely agree that Rasmus is awesome and his accomplishments
are far and beyond amazing, but I'm saying that I think that Rasmus is
motivated to stay true to PHP's philosophies and not be willing to
rethink them: that is what I meant by that.
[/snip]
What, exactly, is wrong with
Kid (and I mean that loosely), you should have stopped while you were
ahead of the tide and let it die...
Instead you had to open up and add more drivel that:
1. shows how little you think about those who have come before you and
their ability to shift as technology changes
2. further shoved
umm guys, can you take this offlist please (if you
wish to continue this) as I dont really see how this
can benifit anyone.
Cheers,
Ryan
--- Matt Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I absolutely agree that Rasmus is awesome and
his accomplishments
are far and beyond amazing, but I'm saying
Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I absolutely agree that Rasmus is awesome and his accomplishments
are far and beyond amazing, but I'm saying that I think that Rasmus is
motivated to stay true to PHP's philosophies and not be willing to
rethink them: that is what I meant by that.
[/snip]
What,
Matt Todd wrote:
But of course, that is just conjecture. I'm just saying that I think
he has vested interest and will be least of all willing to make the
shift in thought (even if he did think it held some merit).
I didn't read that article too closely, but I would appreciate *brief*
Stut wrote:
Matt Todd wrote:
But of course, that is just conjecture. I'm just saying that I think
he has vested interest and will be least of all willing to make the
shift in thought (even if he did think it held some merit).
I didn't read that article too closely, but I would appreciate
There's nothing wrong with staying true to the philosophy at all, I
just think that it may well be detrimental in the end. And that is
what I said in the (toilet)paper, that there will be (emphasis on the
eventuality, not on the present actuality) a time that PHP will become
the old stuff because
On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:42, Matt Todd wrote:
there will be (emphasis on the
eventuality, not on the present actuality) a time that PHP will become
the old stuff because it did not evolve with the philosophies.
Philosophies are just that.. a philosophy. They are not standards.
They are also
20 matches
Mail list logo
