Re: PHP vs. ColdFusion
| From: | Richard Lynch | Date: | Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:30:31 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PHP vs. ColdFusion | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-221136@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, August 22, 2005 12:03 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 14:16, Rick Emery wrote:
>>
>> "I read the following article and I wanted your feedback on it.
>>
>> http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2002/papers/html/php/#section_6. I
I only read half-way through it...
His first thesis (Section 2, after the Intro) that PHP's strength
comes from co-mingling HTML and business logic has some merit...
But, really, you can make a mess of that equally well in ANY language.
Only a disciplined architecture and design will stop that.
Section 3
Since this section is based on FACTUALLY INCORRECT statements, it's
utter bullshit.
Re-defining a function in PHP generates an error.
The PHP class system provides distinct name-spaces for functions (and
more)
His entire these is un-tenable.
Section 4
Again, FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
Virtually *all* of the settings can be over-ridden in .htaccess,
and/or in PHP code itself.
At this point, I quit reading. It's clear the author has NO CLUE
about how PHP actually works.
When a guy writes a document that is all anti-PHP that is FACTUALLY
INCORRECT, why would you bother to use it for anything at all?
PS There are also several typos in the document, which never helps.
--
Like Music?
http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm