2 ms·
This is the most pernicious and annoying technicality that advocates of low-quality languages invoke. PHP does not actively work against bad or just plain wrong
by wyager 10y ago
This is the most pernicious and annoying technicality that advocates of low-quality languages invoke. PHP does not actively work against bad or just plain wrong code, and its construction actively encourages bad code. It's missing aspects that we know to be tremendously useful for writing high-quality correct code.
You can write low-quality software in e.g. rust, but you're going to work a lot harder at it. Rust (again, just as an example) also makes it easier to write high-quality software.
This is really the only metric by which you can judge the quality of a language, since in the end they're all (mostly) Turing complete.
- lsaferite 10y agoSo, I generally don't wade into this argument. I've been programming for 27 years, 12 of that professionally. In that time I've used a lot of languages for a lot of projects. Every language is capable of being used to shoot yourself in the foot TBH. The hate that PHP gets is, IMHO, mostly from the fact that it's a gateway language and as such often has a higher WTF per minute rate for the code you find than many other languages. Anyway, on to what made me post this. > its construction actively encourages bad code That's a statement that needs a reference to back it up.
- wyager 10y agoLet's start with this: How would you describe the difference between PHP and assembly? Why is one better than the other in certain cases?