RE: [PHP] PHP is a Bloated Kludge, discuss!

> (From behind filing cabinet where I am ducking preparing for flames). > > Is it just me or is there anyone else that thinks PHP suffers > from not being modular. It is just you and some other people similar to you. Thought this question was up for a while :-) > PHP on the other hand seems to load in ALL the code that MAY > be run. i.e. an include brings things in which are inside an > if, even if the if equates to false. Is it really true? I always though it wasn't. AFAIN: Long time ago require() was working this way. But now, require() and include() are the same. Loaded only when needed. > This means that the language is not extendible in the way > others are. If you do write a function you wish to include > in 'only the pages you wish to use' you have to first > include it, then call it. Well, it has it's pluses and it's minuses, it is extendable, though OOD works a little different in it. But hey, it compiles on the fly, remember? That's a plus for developers, especially newbies. > This has also meant that things like spell checking functions > are built into the core module rather than called in as or > when they are needed. > > Then there is the way database connectivity is handled. > > There are a load of functions (again in the core language) > with there NAMES containing the name of the database you are > connecting to. OK, true. But, this is necessary if you want PHP to automatically connect to different DBs. A plus to portability and a minus to... (to what?) > For example all MySQL functions are mysql_something and I > guess all oracle ones are oracle_something. This would only > be a minor inconvenience because wrapper functions can be > written but from what I can gather different databases have > different functionality available. That is why Sascha Sunmann wrote PHPLIB and (Stig?) Bakken created PEAR (released with every PHP distribution, btw - just waiting for you to use it) phplib.netuse.de php.net/pear > I know this is partly because different databases have > different functionality. what I would expect to see is a > load of generic function which attempt to provide same > functionality where it is available or implement some of the > functionality themselves. Obviously for some of the less > sophisticated databases these functions would have to do more > work and maybe some functionality wouldn't be available in > certain databases (but only the things like stored procedures). > > Got a nast feeling that ASP (spit) does something like this. > > You may cry, it cant be done. however I remember a > connectivity product that came from Borland (this was back in > the Paradox Days) which did just this, it even had > transaction handling built into this connectivity layer for DBase! > > Anyway I am playing Devils Advocate. We all play it once at least ;-) > What I do like about PHP is how quickly it can be learnt and > how quick you can build apps with it. Maybe this is at the > expense of elegance. Maybe PHP5 will address these issues -;) Isn't it the greatest thing of it? Just think of this - where else you can become a programmer in a short time? Compliling/executing/libraring/connecting just to make a simple guestbook for your site. > And there are certainly some very busy PHP sites, you should > see the traffic levels on indymedia.org during > anti-capitalist demonstrations and I am sure during the New > York attacks they went belistic. Search archives for "php sites" or something like this. The topic comes up every week or so :-) Maxim Maletsky www.PHPBeginner.com