5 ms·

You're using the two super-fallacious arguments I refer to in my original reply: 1. You can write bad code in any language. 2. All languages have warts. My r

You're using the two super-fallacious arguments I refer to in my original reply: 1. You can write bad code in any language. 2. All languages have warts. My response to #1: Here is a rock. Please use it, with some nails, to hang a bunch of pictures on your walls. Don't complain about your tool because it's entirely possible to use it successfully at this task. Or, less sarcastically, why use a tool that encourages bad results when you can use a tool that nudges you toward better results? My response to #2: Would you rather have one wart, or 100 warts?

spacedcowboy 6y ago
Not really. As I thought I'd alluded to in the above, when I was using PHP "in anger" as it were, there were 3 options for dynamic content: 1) Write a C program, and use the GCI-BIN interface. In developmental terms, this sucked dead bunnies through thin straws 2) Use some god-awful server-side script thing, updating static files with externally-invoked changes. Yes, people resorted to this. 3) Use PHP/FI. Life is now harmonious and (relatively) pain-free. There was Cold Fusion, but it was Windows-only. The sane world, at the time, wouldn't serve websites on windows software unless there was a dedicated uptime team involved. One of these was clearly the better solution. For things it didn't do, it was easy to extend (I wrote the PHP database support for Illustra, a now-defunct object-orientated database that we used) These days I use it for shell-scripts, and I can bash out something that I need/want in much shorter time (basically because of the enormous standard library) than using any of the other options. My criterion here is "a text editor and 10 minutes"... There are some, very modern, languages that it takes 10 minutes to spin up the IDE and set up the damn project...
- ragnese 6y ago
  You're moving the goalposts. PHP was a great option in 1995. It is not today (except as a basic scripting language, where you and I agree completely. I would use PHP as soon as my bash script gets to about 100 lines). Your post here is arguing about 1995 or whatever. The post I replied to was full of present-tense about "just use the good parts" and "all languages have issues", etc.
  - spacedcowboy 6y ago
    That's ... fair comment. My apologies, I have a bad habit of not clicking on parent to see what the context of a post is.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    Not just moving the goalposts, but actually programming PHP 14 years before it first appeared in 1995, and putting database-driven websites on the web 8 years before it was invented in 1989. His post here is arguing about 1981, actually. >I’ll admit to a soft spot for PHP - I was putting database-driven websites on the web when that wasn’t much of a thing (back in 1981, if foggy memory recalls true). I wrote the asset management system that was used by Lucasfilm on Star Wars, by Manix on the Matrix, by various post-production houses in Soho, etc. etc. - all in PHP. We had video-streaming from remote locations before RealNetworks were mainstream. All because of PHP.
    - spacedcowboy 6y ago
      As I replied above, my maths was off. For what it's worth, I started using PHP at Oyster Partners (then Oyster Systems). We did the London Metal Exchange, Swiss Bank, Euromoney and all it's sister magazines. When I joined Oyster, it was 3 people and it ran off a dual-link ISDN line... These days the company has been subsumed into a much larger business worth several million, but Luke still runs that business. I left Oyster after a couple of years (then 50-strong) to set up my own business in 1998 with an angel investor - the business that Apple eventually bought, and the wayback machine puts us on the web in 2001, which makes sense - we spent a couple of years writing the app before it went public. The link to the wayback machine site is https://web.archive.org/web/20010501133322/http://www.tea-and-cakes.co.uk/public/company/ https://web.archive.org/web/20010501133322/http://www.tea-an...
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    I disagree that PHP was a great option in 1995. It was an accessible and good enough option, for multiple reasons. The primary of which was the fact that it was built up for the web and was extremely cheap to host.

spacedcowboy 6y ago

Not really. As I thought I'd alluded to in the above, when I was using PHP "in anger" as it were, there were 3 options for dynamic content: 1) Write a C program, and use the GCI-BIN interface. In developmental terms, this sucked dead bunnies through thin straws 2) Use some god-awful server-side script thing, updating static files with externally-invoked changes. Yes, people resorted to this. 3) Use PHP/FI. Life is now harmonious and (relatively) pain-free. There was Cold Fusion, but it was Windows-only. The sane world, at the time, wouldn't serve websites on windows software unless there was a dedicated uptime team involved. One of these was clearly the better solution. For things it didn't do, it was easy to extend (I wrote the PHP database support for Illustra, a now-defunct object-orientated database that we used) These days I use it for shell-scripts, and I can bash out something that I need/want in much shorter time (basically because of the enormous standard library) than using any of the other options. My criterion here is "a text editor and 10 minutes"... There are some, very modern, languages that it takes 10 minutes to spin up the IDE and set up the damn project...

ragnese 6y ago
You're moving the goalposts. PHP was a great option in 1995. It is not today (except as a basic scripting language, where you and I agree completely. I would use PHP as soon as my bash script gets to about 100 lines). Your post here is arguing about 1995 or whatever. The post I replied to was full of present-tense about "just use the good parts" and "all languages have issues", etc.
- spacedcowboy 6y ago
  That's ... fair comment. My apologies, I have a bad habit of not clicking on parent to see what the context of a post is.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  Not just moving the goalposts, but actually programming PHP 14 years before it first appeared in 1995, and putting database-driven websites on the web 8 years before it was invented in 1989. His post here is arguing about 1981, actually. >I’ll admit to a soft spot for PHP - I was putting database-driven websites on the web when that wasn’t much of a thing (back in 1981, if foggy memory recalls true). I wrote the asset management system that was used by Lucasfilm on Star Wars, by Manix on the Matrix, by various post-production houses in Soho, etc. etc. - all in PHP. We had video-streaming from remote locations before RealNetworks were mainstream. All because of PHP.
  - spacedcowboy 6y ago
    As I replied above, my maths was off. For what it's worth, I started using PHP at Oyster Partners (then Oyster Systems). We did the London Metal Exchange, Swiss Bank, Euromoney and all it's sister magazines. When I joined Oyster, it was 3 people and it ran off a dual-link ISDN line... These days the company has been subsumed into a much larger business worth several million, but Luke still runs that business. I left Oyster after a couple of years (then 50-strong) to set up my own business in 1998 with an angel investor - the business that Apple eventually bought, and the wayback machine puts us on the web in 2001, which makes sense - we spent a couple of years writing the app before it went public. The link to the wayback machine site is https://web.archive.org/web/20010501133322/http://www.tea-and-cakes.co.uk/public/company/ https://web.archive.org/web/20010501133322/http://www.tea-an...
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  I disagree that PHP was a great option in 1995. It was an accessible and good enough option, for multiple reasons. The primary of which was the fact that it was built up for the web and was extremely cheap to host.