3 ms·
From the article: >Don’t comment with these things >>I’ve been in PHP arguments a lot. I hear a lot of very generic counter-arguments that are really only des
by sedev 15y ago
From the article:
>Don’t comment with these things
>>I’ve been in PHP arguments a lot. I hear a lot of very generic counter-arguments that are really only designed to halt the conversation immediately. Don’t pull these on me, please. :(
>>>Do not tell me that “good developers can write good code in any language”, or bad developers blah blah. That doesn’t mean anything. A good carpenter can drive in a nail with either a rock or a hammer, but how many carpenters do you see bashing stuff with rocks? Part of what makes a good developer is the ability to choose the tools that work best.
>>>Do not tell me that it’s the developer’s responsibility to memorize a thousand strange exceptions and surprising behaviors. Yes, this is necessary in any system, because computers suck. That doesn’t mean there’s no upper limit for how much zaniness is acceptable in a system. PHP is nothing but exceptions, and it is not okay when wrestling the language takes more effort than actually writing your program. My tools should not create net positive work for me to do.
That's not even deep in the article! By spouting off exactly the arguments that the author anticipates, you're making yourself look like a jerkhole who didn't even do basic reading before spouting off a reflexive, unthought, and worthless opinion.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tnash 15y agoI did read it, that's why I used that concept. I don't think calling me a "jerkhole" really adds to the dialogue. I just disagree. The author points it out because he doesn't want to hear it. That doesn't make it a less correct counter-argument. I think accomplishing the goal is most important. Secondly, I don't think PHP is a bad tool. You can accomplish tasks very quickly in PHP. It is certainly not the fastest language, of course, it's not compiled, but it has a lot of great features. A lot of the points made in the article I consider features of PHP and are not detrimental.
- sedev 15y agoIf you read that part, it certainly didn't inform what you wrote. You tapped out the same tired boilerplate argument as ever without actually saying why he was wrong to dismiss those arguments up front, or without even acknowledging that he did so. So your post was indistinguishable from what someone would say who hadn't read the article, and that's why I called you a jerkhole: I'm pointing out how you didn't add any signal to the conversation. If you'd been serious about adding signal instead of noise, you would have acknowledged that he anticipated your argument, and made a counterargument to his dismissal. You did not. You just said "no it's not, because I say so."