> This sounds like other similar language will not get the job done. That's not what they're saying. If someone knows a tool and it works for them, then it's m

> This sounds like other similar language will not get the job done. That's not what they're saying. If someone knows a tool and it works for them, then it's more immediately useful than another tool which they don't yet know how to use, or how well it works. > The truth is that there are much better alternatives which are a lot more pleasant to use and will get the job done in a much better way. Quantify "better". PHP has its flaws (quite a lot of them), but it also has its advantages. It's a very popular language, so if you want to do something with it, almost certainly someone else has tried to do the same thing, so there will be libraries for it, guides, people who you can ask for help if you have trouble. It has a shared-nothing architecture, which aids scalability. It has extensive documentation. It has a large selection of battle-tested frameworks. There is an almost infinite selection of hosting providers. > This is a myth. Php is not easy to use. May be, It is easy to start. PHP's flaws can make it an occasional pain, but it is not really harder to use than any other ALGOL-like language. It is sometimes easier as it tends to expose simple interfaces to things, rather than requiring the user deal with a lot of complexity. > But you need to know a lot of useless stuff (outside the context of Php), to get anything to work any where near reliably. This is, to some extent, true for other languages as well. But yes, I'd agree with you here that PHP has more baggage than its contemporaries. > Also, be prepared to write a lot more automated tests if you want to keep it that way. This is true of dynamic languages generally. Though PHP has (limited, runtime) type-checking, which can reduce the burden here somewhat.