2 ms·

> 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 ab

by 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.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > This is the second time you used language designed to escalate this into some kind of personal attack. I've done no such thing. I've stated clearly my opinions. If you feel offended by my opinions, I apologise. That being said, I don't preface everything I say with weasel words. I personally believe doing this (though you might disagree and if you do that's fine) that weasel words are mostly useless (though they do help at times for people who infer more than intended) and I really try to avoid using them as much as I can, though I have been known to fail at this. =) > Why? I haven't intended to do this. I didn't "design" anything. At most I felt that the previous statement could have been taken the wrong way, hence the smiley (Which is basically my way of saying I don't intend to start a flame war). You were, in fact, putting your own personal spin on things rather than discussing what was actually said. Basically, no offence was intended.
    - Udo 16y ago
      I'm not offended, I just felt the discussion was taking an unnecessary turn towards the unproductive side, about a point that is simply not worth the effort we both have so far unwisely invested into this exchange ;-) I do believe "weasel words" are important, not only because stating personal opinion as fact is impolite, but mainly because it can be vital for the structure of an argument to distinguish possibilities, speculation, belief, theory, and factual data.

by Udo 16y ago

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.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > This is the second time you used language designed to escalate this into some kind of personal attack. I've done no such thing. I've stated clearly my opinions. If you feel offended by my opinions, I apologise. That being said, I don't preface everything I say with weasel words. I personally believe doing this (though you might disagree and if you do that's fine) that weasel words are mostly useless (though they do help at times for people who infer more than intended) and I really try to avoid using them as much as I can, though I have been known to fail at this. =) > Why? I haven't intended to do this. I didn't "design" anything. At most I felt that the previous statement could have been taken the wrong way, hence the smiley (Which is basically my way of saying I don't intend to start a flame war). You were, in fact, putting your own personal spin on things rather than discussing what was actually said. Basically, no offence was intended.
  - Udo 16y ago
    I'm not offended, I just felt the discussion was taking an unnecessary turn towards the unproductive side, about a point that is simply not worth the effort we both have so far unwisely invested into this exchange ;-) I do believe "weasel words" are important, not only because stating personal opinion as fact is impolite, but mainly because it can be vital for the structure of an argument to distinguish possibilities, speculation, belief, theory, and factual data.