Re: What's wrong the __autoload()?

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 15:17 -0500, Greg Donald wrote: > On 3/13/08, Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> wrote: > > Sooooo... there we have it everyone... Greg has admitted that Ruby is as smart as a cat. > > Hahaha.. yeah, you really got me on that one. > > /me slaps his knee. > > > I like something a little more edgy personally. Something closer to human... something > > with personality, something that evolves, something not afraid to be itself. PHP fits > > the bill. > > PHP is anything but itself. Before it was actually written in C it > was first written in Perl. And although it may be written in C and > may look like C and Perl right now, it's clearly evolving into > something very similar to Java. PHP has a long, long history with > identity crisis, ongoing even today. But PHP is neither C, Perl, or Java. It's PHP, it formed it's own identity. > Meanwhile Ruby was written as a full-on OO language from the start. > The OO layer didn't get "strapped on" at version 3 like with PHP. Strapped on is called "evolution". Somewhere along the line some creature "strapped on" a pair of eyeballs... and now you can read. Or maybe you're a creationist... to each their own I suppose. > OO was the main idea from the very start with Ruby. As a result Ruby's > OO model makes PHP's OO model look like a steaming pile of shit out in > the pasture. Hell, Perl's OO even makes PHP's OO look bad > syntax-wise. PHP gives you options. You can code procedural or OO. It's up to you. Functional would be nice in some cases, but it's not a requirement. Personally I like to KISS and make lightweight use of OOP principles. In that respect, but certainly not limited to that respect, I really can't say the syntax looks bad. Now Ruby syntax... that is weird... so too is Perl syntax. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP