Re: PHP a lightweight language?

> Michael Hall <lists@mulga.com.au> wrote > > I'm interested in the proposition made recently on this list that PHP is > somehow a 'lightweight' language that some people don't take seriously. I > am relatively new to Linux and open source programming and only really > know PHP and some shell scripting, though I am now starting to explore > Python. Seems to me that most languages can be considered "lightweight" in some respects. After all, couldn't C be considered lightweight compared with machine code? And then, most languages are written in something else (something heavier?): if I remember correctly, Squeak is about the only thing that really eats its own dog food. And, from what I remember, such recursion wasn't straightforward! It's really a silly discussion. PHP does what it does exceptionally well. You'd be barking mad to write an operating system in it, but you'd be equally crazy to write a C application to do what a shell script does or to use Java to run a regex on a text file. The reason, I think, that there are so many languages out there is that each has its advantages when used in a particular context. It may be able to work out of context, but the overheads in development and/or compilation or run time build up. -- ****************************************************************************** Marx: "Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?" Proudhon: "Because all proper tea is theft." ******************************************************************************