2 ms·

No one is acting. The question: > When I read comments coming from people who don't use PHP which are always negative or condescending, I wonder - how do you

No one is acting. The question: > When I read comments coming from people who don't use PHP which are always negative or condescending, I wonder - how do you imagine programmers who use PHP are like? Your answer: > I imagine programmers who do not place a high value on the impact that their tools have on their ability to think through problems effectively Even in the most charitable of circumstances it's hard to read your words in a way that isn't a slight against someone who chooses PHP. Especially when taken in the context of the discussion to which you are responding. And even more so because you have yet to substantiate (or even define) that claim in any meaningful way. I have no problem with someone who doesn't like PHP (or any language). I don't particularly like PHP. And you know what? I hate python! But I am not making sweeping generalizations about those who program in python and whether or not they value their "ability to think through problems effectively"[0]. Mostly because that claim would make no sense at all... It's hard to rationalize your answer above to mean anything like "Don't eat lasagna if you're lactose intolerant", so forgive me when I say that you are the one acting. Hey! I get it. You don't like PHP and you took a cheap shot at it. We all do it. The "PHP sucks" trope is hard to resist! But don't act like that isn't what happened. Have some self-knowledge and take the rejection. It's healthier that way. [0] or import a file in a sane way :)

afarrell 6y ago
> you have yet to substantiate (or even define) that claim in any meaningful way. Sure. To define my claim more clearly: 1. There is a set Q (Programmers who believe that tools have a negligible impact on a programmer's ability to use that tool to think through problems) A set Q's belief in the low impact of tools is expressed by statements like: - "You still have to figure the problem out before solving it with algorithms. No language or framework will help you do that." - "you are leveling a criticism at yourself and your own inability to use a tool. This is wholly unrelated to the quality of the tool itself" - "The 'problems' do not change based on which language is chosen to solve them." 2. There is a set P (programmers who prefer to choose PHP) 3. My first claim is that a member of set P is likely to also be a member of set Q. PHP developers are likely to believe the things that people in this very subthread are saying. Do you still find my first claim unclear, insufficiently-supported, or offensive?
- kingdomcome50 6y ago
  What does a "tool that allows you to think through problems" look like? This claim is unsubstantiated. You have provided nothing to discredit an assertion that no such tool exists, and certainly haven't provided any criteria by which your claim could be falsified. Your claim is: 1. Such a tool(s) exists -- how can I know? 2. PHP is not one of these tools -- why not? 3. PHP practitioners don't value these tools -- huh? It's a total non-sequitur. Your criticism reads as "PHP solves problems differently than how I want to solve them". That is a totally reasonable opinion to hold (many do)! That's not really a reflection of PHP, it's a reflection of yourself. And that's okay! You don't have to like PHP. But it is a little offensive to try to justify your preferences in a way that passes sweeping judgement over anyone who programs in PHP. Especially when your argument insinuates that PHP programmers must have a deficit in their ability to think through problems...
  - afarrell 6y ago
    > Your criticism reads as "PHP solves problems differently than how I want to solve them" Fantastic. Then I am communicating my intent. > You have provided nothing to discredit an assertion that no such tool exists I don't have to. I'm only saying that you think no such tool exists and I think think that (for me at least) such tools do exist. > Especially when your argument insinuates that PHP programmers must have a deficit in their ability to think through problems... It only insinuates that if you edit my sentence to remove the words "the impact that their tools have on" from my sentence.
    - kingdomcome50 6y ago
      To suggest that such tools exist, that these tools impact one's ability to effectively(!) think through problems, and that PHP programmers simply don't value these tools does insinuate a belief that PHP programmers are in some way unable to effectively think through problems. A broad claim indeed! Add to the above that you are unable to define, identify, or in any way clarify what criteria you are using to classify these tools, how it is they impact a person's ability to effectively think through problems, and why PHP is not one of them... and we are left with an obvious conclusion: you don't know what you are talking about. Suggesting that PHP doesn't allow you to effectively think through problems, while certainly ripe for some fleshing out, is very different than saying PHP programmers (other people!) don't value tools that allow them to effectively think through problems. We call my first paragraph ignorance, and the second projection. Turns out I was right! At the end of the day any answer to a question asking why people condescend PHP programmers that doesn't dismiss the premise is itself condescending (or at the very least an admission thereof). > "Why do you condescend PHP programmers?" > "They don't share my values." That's essentially your argument. Well... that's not really an argument is it? What are their values? What are your values? Why is one set better than the other? And most importantly, why does this lead to condescension? The answers to the above, as I pointed out in my original comment, lead to only one conclusion: you've only identified a deficit in yourself.

afarrell 6y ago

> you have yet to substantiate (or even define) that claim in any meaningful way. Sure. To define my claim more clearly: 1. There is a set Q (Programmers who believe that tools have a negligible impact on a programmer's ability to use that tool to think through problems) A set Q's belief in the low impact of tools is expressed by statements like: - "You still have to figure the problem out before solving it with algorithms. No language or framework will help you do that." - "you are leveling a criticism at yourself and your own inability to use a tool. This is wholly unrelated to the quality of the tool itself" - "The 'problems' do not change based on which language is chosen to solve them." 2. There is a set P (programmers who prefer to choose PHP) 3. My first claim is that a member of set P is likely to also be a member of set Q. PHP developers are likely to believe the things that people in this very subthread are saying. Do you still find my first claim unclear, insufficiently-supported, or offensive?

kingdomcome50 6y ago
What does a "tool that allows you to think through problems" look like? This claim is unsubstantiated. You have provided nothing to discredit an assertion that no such tool exists, and certainly haven't provided any criteria by which your claim could be falsified. Your claim is: 1. Such a tool(s) exists -- how can I know? 2. PHP is not one of these tools -- why not? 3. PHP practitioners don't value these tools -- huh? It's a total non-sequitur. Your criticism reads as "PHP solves problems differently than how I want to solve them". That is a totally reasonable opinion to hold (many do)! That's not really a reflection of PHP, it's a reflection of yourself. And that's okay! You don't have to like PHP. But it is a little offensive to try to justify your preferences in a way that passes sweeping judgement over anyone who programs in PHP. Especially when your argument insinuates that PHP programmers must have a deficit in their ability to think through problems...
- afarrell 6y ago
  > Your criticism reads as "PHP solves problems differently than how I want to solve them" Fantastic. Then I am communicating my intent. > You have provided nothing to discredit an assertion that no such tool exists I don't have to. I'm only saying that you think no such tool exists and I think think that (for me at least) such tools do exist. > Especially when your argument insinuates that PHP programmers must have a deficit in their ability to think through problems... It only insinuates that if you edit my sentence to remove the words "the impact that their tools have on" from my sentence.
  - kingdomcome50 6y ago
    To suggest that such tools exist, that these tools impact one's ability to effectively(!) think through problems, and that PHP programmers simply don't value these tools does insinuate a belief that PHP programmers are in some way unable to effectively think through problems. A broad claim indeed! Add to the above that you are unable to define, identify, or in any way clarify what criteria you are using to classify these tools, how it is they impact a person's ability to effectively think through problems, and why PHP is not one of them... and we are left with an obvious conclusion: you don't know what you are talking about. Suggesting that PHP doesn't allow you to effectively think through problems, while certainly ripe for some fleshing out, is very different than saying PHP programmers (other people!) don't value tools that allow them to effectively think through problems. We call my first paragraph ignorance, and the second projection. Turns out I was right! At the end of the day any answer to a question asking why people condescend PHP programmers that doesn't dismiss the premise is itself condescending (or at the very least an admission thereof). > "Why do you condescend PHP programmers?" > "They don't share my values." That's essentially your argument. Well... that's not really an argument is it? What are their values? What are your values? Why is one set better than the other? And most importantly, why does this lead to condescension? The answers to the above, as I pointed out in my original comment, lead to only one conclusion: you've only identified a deficit in yourself.