6 ms·

Renaming this to "We stick with PHP because it's what we know" would eliminate the need for most of the post. I'm not saying it isn't a valid point, I'm just gi

by latch 16y ago

Renaming this to "We stick with PHP because it's what we know" would eliminate the need for most of the post. I'm not saying it isn't a valid point, I'm just giving a TL;DR. The other two, less emphasized, points are: it isn't as stale as everyone thinks and you can be as [un]successful with it as anything else. These are three very common and legitimate arguments. However, both sides of the language wars tend to see things in absolutes. Experience can be an asset, just like it can be a liability. The chance that you'll recognize your own experience as anything but an asset are slim to none.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Udo 16y ago
There may be another point: the author asserts PHP is just glue "between the front and the back" of a web application, I guess with the implication being that it's not really important. However, I don't believe the glue analogy is valid. Typically, the server-side scripting language implements the business logic, the real data structures (as opposed to what's being saved to DB) and a large part of the layout. That's not just the glue, that's pretty much the whole neocortex.
- eli 16y ago
  Like many things, I guess it depends on the app you're building.
  - Udo 16y ago
    I'll go out on a limb here and say that most apps handle some kind of data structure on the server, and in many cases they facilitate some kind of interaction between the user and this data. While you can theoretically do the entire functionality in client-side JavaScript, I assert the idea is so abysmally bad it's not really worth considering as a valid counter example. Please note that I wouldn't include pure single user applications like http://www.diagram.ly/ http://www.diagram.ly/ in this category because they don't manipulate objects on the server that are in need of protection and validation.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > I guess with the implication being that it's not really important. You'd guess wrong then. The implication isn't that it's not important. Rather, that it's not important to the resulting web page. That the web page is written in Ruby or Python or Perl. This isn't to say that what inside doesn't matter to those working with it. To provide a comparison: I don't care if a game uses C, C++, Objective-C, Java, etc. I care about the end result. At least, that was my understanding of what was written.
  - Udo 16y ago
    > Rather, that it's not important to the resulting web page. That the web page is written in Ruby or Python or Perl. Without going into a pointless flamewar about the definition of important, and what the author possibly meant as opposed to what was actually written, I believe the choice of technology stack does indeed influence the outcome of the project in many ways. But that's not really the point here at all. The author's assertion that PHP is "just" a glue component simply doesn't reflect the amount of heavy lifting done by it.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      > I believe the choice of technology stack does indeed influence the outcome of the project in many ways. Project. > Rather, that it's not important to the resulting web page. Web page. I was merely referring to the HTML that gets sent to the browser. I wasn't suggesting that the technology being used doesn't affect the project. > The author's assertion that PHP is "just" a glue component simply doesn't reflect the amount of heavy lifting done by it. I just said I think you are reading too much here, and inferring things the author never intended, especially considering the context of the article, especially around the part being referenced. I agree, it's useless to speculate. So, maybe you should focus on what's being said rather than putting your own spin on it? =)
      - Udo 16y ago
        > So, maybe you should focus on what's being said rather than putting your own spin on it? =) This is the second time you used language designed to escalate this into some kind of personal attack. Why? Simply say you disagree and move on. (I even modded you up the first time.) It's not like one of us has a huge thesis to defend here. It's a minor point about a minor article.
- mirkules 16y ago
  I will argue that for mid to large applications, scripting languages are just the entry point to your entire application, as the author says, the glue. I would run a "real" application server underneath for the middle tier (i.e. to handle the business logic), and have the scripts handle the presentation layer only.
  - Udo 16y ago
    > I would run a "real" application server underneath for the middle tier (i.e. to handle the business logic), and have the scripts handle the presentation layer only. Yeah, I believe you would. But not Facebook, Wordpress, or even large parts of the Google Apps landscape. I'm not judging either side, mind you. Do you by chance primarily develop business applications? Because business app people often favor this special type of multi-tiered design that typically has a Java app server behind everything.
    - sbov 16y ago
      Facebook could probably go in either camp. I'm sure they write some of their business logic in php, but they made Thrift for a reason. In particular, isn't their chat written in Erlang and feed stuff written in c++? I've read that they even use Java for some things.
- coolgeek 16y ago
  "To me, the only significant aspects of Web development are data model, SQL queries and transactions, and page flow design. The rest is just glue code that marries HTML templates to information pulled from the database." Philip Greenspun http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/web-operations http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/web-operations
- njharman 16y ago
  When I read that. I instantly thought well of course they use it as just glue cause they are using a cruddy language. There's lots of reasons to use BASH as a glue language (people should do it more) and there are lots of reasons not to use it to write whole software. PHP, same.
Egregore 16y ago
PHP has one advantage and it is that you can deploy it on most cheap hosting providers and it just works, you shouldn't solve deployment problems (like DB drivers) and pay more as with Rails, Python or Java.

by latch 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Udo 16y ago

There may be another point: the author asserts PHP is just glue "between the front and the back" of a web application, I guess with the implication being that it's not really important. However, I don't believe the glue analogy is valid. Typically, the server-side scripting language implements the business logic, the real data structures (as opposed to what's being saved to DB) and a large part of the layout. That's not just the glue, that's pretty much the whole neocortex.

eli 16y ago
Like many things, I guess it depends on the app you're building.
- Udo 16y ago
  I'll go out on a limb here and say that most apps handle some kind of data structure on the server, and in many cases they facilitate some kind of interaction between the user and this data. While you can theoretically do the entire functionality in client-side JavaScript, I assert the idea is so abysmally bad it's not really worth considering as a valid counter example. Please note that I wouldn't include pure single user applications like http://www.diagram.ly/ http://www.diagram.ly/ in this category because they don't manipulate objects on the server that are in need of protection and validation.
jasonlotito 16y ago
> I guess with the implication being that it's not really important. You'd guess wrong then. The implication isn't that it's not important. Rather, that it's not important to the resulting web page. That the web page is written in Ruby or Python or Perl. This isn't to say that what inside doesn't matter to those working with it. To provide a comparison: I don't care if a game uses C, C++, Objective-C, Java, etc. I care about the end result. At least, that was my understanding of what was written.
- Udo 16y ago
  > Rather, that it's not important to the resulting web page. That the web page is written in Ruby or Python or Perl. Without going into a pointless flamewar about the definition of important, and what the author possibly meant as opposed to what was actually written, I believe the choice of technology stack does indeed influence the outcome of the project in many ways. But that's not really the point here at all. The author's assertion that PHP is "just" a glue component simply doesn't reflect the amount of heavy lifting done by it.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > I believe the choice of technology stack does indeed influence the outcome of the project in many ways. Project. > Rather, that it's not important to the resulting web page. Web page. I was merely referring to the HTML that gets sent to the browser. I wasn't suggesting that the technology being used doesn't affect the project. > The author's assertion that PHP is "just" a glue component simply doesn't reflect the amount of heavy lifting done by it. I just said I think you are reading too much here, and inferring things the author never intended, especially considering the context of the article, especially around the part being referenced. I agree, it's useless to speculate. So, maybe you should focus on what's being said rather than putting your own spin on it? =)
    - Udo 16y ago
      > So, maybe you should focus on what's being said rather than putting your own spin on it? =) This is the second time you used language designed to escalate this into some kind of personal attack. Why? Simply say you disagree and move on. (I even modded you up the first time.) It's not like one of us has a huge thesis to defend here. It's a minor point about a minor article.
mirkules 16y ago
I will argue that for mid to large applications, scripting languages are just the entry point to your entire application, as the author says, the glue. I would run a "real" application server underneath for the middle tier (i.e. to handle the business logic), and have the scripts handle the presentation layer only.
- Udo 16y ago
  > I would run a "real" application server underneath for the middle tier (i.e. to handle the business logic), and have the scripts handle the presentation layer only. Yeah, I believe you would. But not Facebook, Wordpress, or even large parts of the Google Apps landscape. I'm not judging either side, mind you. Do you by chance primarily develop business applications? Because business app people often favor this special type of multi-tiered design that typically has a Java app server behind everything.
  - sbov 16y ago
    Facebook could probably go in either camp. I'm sure they write some of their business logic in php, but they made Thrift for a reason. In particular, isn't their chat written in Erlang and feed stuff written in c++? I've read that they even use Java for some things.
coolgeek 16y ago
"To me, the only significant aspects of Web development are data model, SQL queries and transactions, and page flow design. The rest is just glue code that marries HTML templates to information pulled from the database." Philip Greenspun http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/web-operations http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/web-operations
njharman 16y ago
When I read that. I instantly thought well of course they use it as just glue cause they are using a cruddy language. There's lots of reasons to use BASH as a glue language (people should do it more) and there are lots of reasons not to use it to write whole software. PHP, same.

Egregore 16y ago

PHP has one advantage and it is that you can deploy it on most cheap hosting providers and it just works, you shouldn't solve deployment problems (like DB drivers) and pay more as with Rails, Python or Java.