4 ms·

I thought we were talking about the bit jrockway actually quoted. Oh well, you're still miles off. 1) You can read from the interview that the quotee was speak

by pbiggar 17y ago

I thought we were talking about the bit jrockway actually quoted. Oh well, you're still miles off. 1) You can read from the interview that the quotee was speaking to a non-technical person. Even so, they're using the term in the commonly used sense. But you haven't shown that they're wrong, only that you disagree with the term. 2) You are right. This is the only falsehood I can see here. I'll stipulate that its ok in a 'you know what I meant' kinda way. 3) Your answer to 2) depends on the quotee speaking about PHP, but now they aren't? And in 1) you said that scripting languages don't exist. Basically, you're reaching. Anyway, please name a scripting language which is not executed on line order. PHP certainly is. 4) Values aren't mentioned anywhere. Anyway, PHP requires functions and classes to be declared before use. (Strictly speaking, values don't exist before they are used, so what you said doesn't make sense. I presume you meant variables, but variables aren't declared. So I presume you meant defined, but strictly speaking there is no such thing as a variable in PHP anyway, just a mapping of strings to values (see: all the literature on the topic, including mine)). 5) They're obviously talking in the context of a native compiler, so I see nothing wrong with this. 6) They do? First I heard of it. I'm guessing you've got a funny definition of 'modern compiled languages' to back this up. 7) Executables don't though. 8) Not necessarily, sure. The first iteration of my PHP compiler was 10 times slower. But to say that the quotee is _wrong_ just because some implementation can be slower than some other implementation, is faulty logic. 9) What's your point? Why are they wrong? So I'll give you one. Two if we count number 8, but that only counts for the most extreme form of pedantry, and it doesn't really contradict anything. So, yeah, one. A long way from ten.

codexon 17y ago
3) 4) <?php echo foo('baz'); function foo($bar) { return $bar; } ?> This looks to me like you can use PHP functions before declaring them above.
- pbiggar 17y ago
  Functions and classes declared anywhere in a file are pushed to the top of that file by the parser. This obscures all the edge cases. Simplest example I can think of: echo foo('baz'); // error { function foo($bar) { return $bar; } // not pulled to top of file }
jmillikin 17y ago
All of those complaints are from the quote. 1) All the more reason not to introduce incorrect terminology; non-technical people won't be able to understand that it's wrong. 3) There are legitimate definitions of "scripting languages"; the one I use is that a scripting language is not useful without 3rd-party code. The Bourne shell and JavaScript are classic examples of scripting languages. QuakeC is a scripting language which isn't executed in line order. 4) Values are procedures (PHP doesn't have functions; the keyword is mis-named), classes, or variables. They do not have to be declared before use in PHP -- if they did, writing mutually-recursive procedures would be impossible in PHP. 5) I see nothing "obvious" about your statement. They state that compiling results in a separate file, which is wrong because some compilers don't. 6) JavaScript (in all popular implementations), Python, JVM languages (Java, Scala), .NET languages (C#, F#, VB.NET), Perl 6. I think even Ruby has a bytecode compiler, now. 7) There is no indication that this new PHP implementation compiles to native executables. 8) Their claim is that compilation makes execution faster. There exist cases where compilation does not make execution faster. Therefore, their claim is incorrect. 9) Their quote states that compiled binaries don't have to be read from beginning to end to execute. This is incorrect. When a binary is executed, or a library linked, it is loaded entirely into memory.
- pbiggar 17y ago
  1) Whatever your opinion, the quotee is not wrong. 3) Please define it. Note that I spend six pages in my PhD on defining it, and there are no formal definitions. Ousterout introduced the term, and didn't define it. That's a crap definition of scripting language. I don't even know what it means, and it's unusable. C++ is pretty much useless without the C++ standard library. Is it a scripting language now? 3) Nice. The fact that you could dredge up a minor language which peaked in 1996 does not make the quotee wrong. 4) This is all wrong. > They do not have to be declared before use in PHP -- if they did, writing mutually-recursive procedures would be impossible in PHP. Whether or not mutually recursive procedures have to be declared is a matter of parsing style. For example, its there in C since it was created using a one-pass compiler. Its not there in Java. In PHP, declaring a function (say x) puts the function into the function-symbol table under the entry "x". When calling x(), the function-table is looked up. It is not necessary to have defined x to parse code that uses it. For example: if (false) { x(); } // legit, x() is never called In a single PHP file, classes and functions declared in the top scope are considered declared at the top of the file. This can lend the appearance that they are not required to be declared, but its a hack. If you include a file later, dont expect to call its functions now. > Values are procedures, classes, or variables. I presume you mean that variables, classes and procedures are all kinds of values. That is simply incorrect. Classes are not first-class values, and first-class classes and functions are approximated in PHP by allowing classes to be instantiated by name (using a string) at run-time. This is changing slightly in 5.3, but the semantics are complicated, and still use strings. Variables are just syntax in PHP. As I said, look at any literature on PHP (or javascript if you prefer). Variables are syntax for keys in a local symbol-table, and aren't real entities. They are certainly not values. > PHP doesn't have functions; the keyword is mis-named. Evidence? I can't think how this is correct. 5) So what if some compilers don't. Nearly all compilers do. The level of pedantry here is astounding. Just because you can list an edge case in which they are wrong, does not make them wrong in the general case. 6) Ah, your definition of "compiled" is "bytecode compiled". What a funny circular argument. 7) Except that the quotee says it! "But with a compiled language, the program you write is compiled into an executable file." 8) "Is a rocketship faster than a bicycle?" Yes. "Aha, but if my rocket isnt moving, the bicycle is faster. Therefore I assert that rocketships are _not_ faster than bicycles". Bollox. 9) Loading from memory is not "reading" in the sense the quotee used, which was clearly parsing. I think you're being deliberately obstinate: try using the context of the article to determine what the words mean. I could argue that binaries do not have to be fully read into memory (they are loaded lazily, page-by-4k-page, by most modern OSes), but I don't want to start a discussion on it. Heaven forbid an obscure 90s OS used 8k pages. Anyway, you're deliberately twisting the quotee's words and being pedantic, so I'm done here.

by pbiggar 17y ago

codexon 17y ago

3) 4) <?php echo foo('baz'); function foo($bar) { return $bar; } ?> This looks to me like you can use PHP functions before declaring them above.

pbiggar 17y ago
Functions and classes declared anywhere in a file are pushed to the top of that file by the parser. This obscures all the edge cases. Simplest example I can think of: echo foo('baz'); // error { function foo($bar) { return $bar; } // not pulled to top of file }

jmillikin 17y ago

All of those complaints are from the quote. 1) All the more reason not to introduce incorrect terminology; non-technical people won't be able to understand that it's wrong. 3) There are legitimate definitions of "scripting languages"; the one I use is that a scripting language is not useful without 3rd-party code. The Bourne shell and JavaScript are classic examples of scripting languages. QuakeC is a scripting language which isn't executed in line order. 4) Values are procedures (PHP doesn't have functions; the keyword is mis-named), classes, or variables. They do not have to be declared before use in PHP -- if they did, writing mutually-recursive procedures would be impossible in PHP. 5) I see nothing "obvious" about your statement. They state that compiling results in a separate file, which is wrong because some compilers don't. 6) JavaScript (in all popular implementations), Python, JVM languages (Java, Scala), .NET languages (C#, F#, VB.NET), Perl 6. I think even Ruby has a bytecode compiler, now. 7) There is no indication that this new PHP implementation compiles to native executables. 8) Their claim is that compilation makes execution faster. There exist cases where compilation does not make execution faster. Therefore, their claim is incorrect. 9) Their quote states that compiled binaries don't have to be read from beginning to end to execute. This is incorrect. When a binary is executed, or a library linked, it is loaded entirely into memory.

pbiggar 17y ago
1) Whatever your opinion, the quotee is not wrong. 3) Please define it. Note that I spend six pages in my PhD on defining it, and there are no formal definitions. Ousterout introduced the term, and didn't define it. That's a crap definition of scripting language. I don't even know what it means, and it's unusable. C++ is pretty much useless without the C++ standard library. Is it a scripting language now? 3) Nice. The fact that you could dredge up a minor language which peaked in 1996 does not make the quotee wrong. 4) This is all wrong. > They do not have to be declared before use in PHP -- if they did, writing mutually-recursive procedures would be impossible in PHP. Whether or not mutually recursive procedures have to be declared is a matter of parsing style. For example, its there in C since it was created using a one-pass compiler. Its not there in Java. In PHP, declaring a function (say x) puts the function into the function-symbol table under the entry "x". When calling x(), the function-table is looked up. It is not necessary to have defined x to parse code that uses it. For example: if (false) { x(); } // legit, x() is never called In a single PHP file, classes and functions declared in the top scope are considered declared at the top of the file. This can lend the appearance that they are not required to be declared, but its a hack. If you include a file later, dont expect to call its functions now. > Values are procedures, classes, or variables. I presume you mean that variables, classes and procedures are all kinds of values. That is simply incorrect. Classes are not first-class values, and first-class classes and functions are approximated in PHP by allowing classes to be instantiated by name (using a string) at run-time. This is changing slightly in 5.3, but the semantics are complicated, and still use strings. Variables are just syntax in PHP. As I said, look at any literature on PHP (or javascript if you prefer). Variables are syntax for keys in a local symbol-table, and aren't real entities. They are certainly not values. > PHP doesn't have functions; the keyword is mis-named. Evidence? I can't think how this is correct. 5) So what if some compilers don't. Nearly all compilers do. The level of pedantry here is astounding. Just because you can list an edge case in which they are wrong, does not make them wrong in the general case. 6) Ah, your definition of "compiled" is "bytecode compiled". What a funny circular argument. 7) Except that the quotee says it! "But with a compiled language, the program you write is compiled into an executable file." 8) "Is a rocketship faster than a bicycle?" Yes. "Aha, but if my rocket isnt moving, the bicycle is faster. Therefore I assert that rocketships are _not_ faster than bicycles". Bollox. 9) Loading from memory is not "reading" in the sense the quotee used, which was clearly parsing. I think you're being deliberately obstinate: try using the context of the article to determine what the words mean. I could argue that binaries do not have to be fully read into memory (they are loaded lazily, page-by-4k-page, by most modern OSes), but I don't want to start a discussion on it. Heaven forbid an obscure 90s OS used 8k pages. Anyway, you're deliberately twisting the quotee's words and being pedantic, so I'm done here.