5 ms·

> You can, but in my experience, most people don't. The same argument can be said of all languages. It's true with PHP because the language is popular. It's

> You can, but in my experience, most people don't. The same argument can be said of all languages. It's true with PHP because the language is popular. It's true with Java, because the language is pop^Wthe holy grail of entreprise software language. Having seen both worlds in small and large corporate settings (and others, in Ruby, Python, C, Perl), I somehow prefer PHP, because at least, it does not pretend to be "the right thing" for enterprise software.

HideousKojima 7y ago
>The same argument can be said of all languages At least languages like Java and C# require static typing (though I'm sure there's some lazy sociopath out there writing C# with every single variable as a dynamic), PHP doesn't even have that minimum bar
- CDSlice 7y ago
  Neither do Python, JS, or Ruby. Personally I’d say a good dynamic language like Python is better than a rough dynamic language, but a good static language is better than a good dynamic language.
  - LadyCailin 7y ago
    And that is a solid argument against Python, JS, and Ruby.
- Juliate 7y ago
  Right, but a type system is as good as it is used. And Java having a good one is no protection against the development cultures of large (consulting or non-tech) companies where the main metric is not the performance of the software neither the frugality of the hardware it runs on.
- cfv 7y ago
  Yeah I'm pretty sure the language that has birthed conventions like HasThisTypePatternTriedToSneakInSomeGenericOrParameterizedTypePatternMatchingStuffAnywhereVisitor and RefreshAuthorizationPolicyProtocolServerSideTranslatorPB are rife with great practices that are in no way obscured by layers upon layers upon layers of half-assed abstraction. The one with System.ServiceModel.Install.Configuration.ServiceModelConfigurationSectionGroupCollection in it surely musts be awesome too; I've heard great things about it. The footguns in a given language being more ornate and towering than in another doesn't make that language better, but the ability to produce resilient, maintainable solutions for a given problem space in it.

HideousKojima 7y ago

>The same argument can be said of all languages At least languages like Java and C# require static typing (though I'm sure there's some lazy sociopath out there writing C# with every single variable as a dynamic), PHP doesn't even have that minimum bar

CDSlice 7y ago
Neither do Python, JS, or Ruby. Personally I’d say a good dynamic language like Python is better than a rough dynamic language, but a good static language is better than a good dynamic language.
- LadyCailin 7y ago
  And that is a solid argument against Python, JS, and Ruby.
Juliate 7y ago
Right, but a type system is as good as it is used. And Java having a good one is no protection against the development cultures of large (consulting or non-tech) companies where the main metric is not the performance of the software neither the frugality of the hardware it runs on.
cfv 7y ago
Yeah I'm pretty sure the language that has birthed conventions like HasThisTypePatternTriedToSneakInSomeGenericOrParameterizedTypePatternMatchingStuffAnywhereVisitor and RefreshAuthorizationPolicyProtocolServerSideTranslatorPB are rife with great practices that are in no way obscured by layers upon layers upon layers of half-assed abstraction. The one with System.ServiceModel.Install.Configuration.ServiceModelConfigurationSectionGroupCollection in it surely musts be awesome too; I've heard great things about it. The footguns in a given language being more ornate and towering than in another doesn't make that language better, but the ability to produce resilient, maintainable solutions for a given problem space in it.