3 ms·

PHP is a natural language. It wasn't fabricated at some university, nor in the lab of some billion dollar company. It evolved. That is its strength. It is the

PHP is a natural language. It wasn't fabricated at some university, nor in the lab of some billion dollar company. It evolved. That is its strength. It is the most adaptable language around. It can be used for anything and it has been used for everything. Programming languages are not human languages. Programming languages are engineering tools. Would you cross a dangerous river on a shaky, lashed together bridge that had "evolved over time from a single plank"? Or would you rather cross via well designed, properly tested bridge, even if it was made from the same materials as the evolved design?

icegreentea 15y ago
Well, if you take the engineering analogy in a somewhat different direction, you end up with all the structures we ever created before we mastered statics and material sciences. Those bridges the Romans built were evolved patterns based on trial and error of previous designs, where the last design was the testing. Anyhow, just something to ponder about.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  Those bridges weren't continually "enhanced" by slapping on more stone and wood (at least not the ones that remained standing for long). Each bridge was a fresh design, based on the best practices of the day. Kind of like new programming languages.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    20-something centuries ago, without the benefit of calculus or Newtonian physics, Romans were better engineers than Rasmus Ledorf.
    - ajuc 15y ago
      Survivors bias, I think. We just don't see all those buildings/bridges that collapsed. And they put bridge designers beneath the bridge when legion crossed it for the first time. If we started to do equivalent for programmers, we would have much better code quality :) And in regard to programming language design we don't have calculus, either. We're just experimenting, and trying to repeat what works.
      - jacques_chester 15y ago
        > Survivors bias, I think That's definitely part of it. But the Romans really did care about engineering and took it seriously -- one of the earliest writers on architecture was Vitruvius. What did he say about buildings? That they should be safe, functional and attractive, in that order. > And in regard to programming language design we don't have calculus, either. Church and McCarthy would like a word ...

icegreentea 15y ago

Well, if you take the engineering analogy in a somewhat different direction, you end up with all the structures we ever created before we mastered statics and material sciences. Those bridges the Romans built were evolved patterns based on trial and error of previous designs, where the last design was the testing. Anyhow, just something to ponder about.

kstenerud 15y ago
Those bridges weren't continually "enhanced" by slapping on more stone and wood (at least not the ones that remained standing for long). Each bridge was a fresh design, based on the best practices of the day. Kind of like new programming languages.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  20-something centuries ago, without the benefit of calculus or Newtonian physics, Romans were better engineers than Rasmus Ledorf.
  - ajuc 15y ago
    Survivors bias, I think. We just don't see all those buildings/bridges that collapsed. And they put bridge designers beneath the bridge when legion crossed it for the first time. If we started to do equivalent for programmers, we would have much better code quality :) And in regard to programming language design we don't have calculus, either. We're just experimenting, and trying to repeat what works.
    - jacques_chester 15y ago
      > Survivors bias, I think That's definitely part of it. But the Romans really did care about engineering and took it seriously -- one of the earliest writers on architecture was Vitruvius. What did he say about buildings? That they should be safe, functional and attractive, in that order. > And in regard to programming language design we don't have calculus, either. Church and McCarthy would like a word ...