Re: Something (was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Labeled Breaks (not the G-word))
| From: | Nicolas Bérard Nault | Date: | Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:02:25 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Something (was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Labeled Breaks (not the G-word)) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-20685@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
I totally agree with you Zeev, your concerns are justified and I appreciate
very much your concerns; they confirm PHP is not going to become yet another
language with tons of useless features. Nevertheless, my opinion is that
goto is not a complex language feature. It occurred to me quite a few times
that no other solutions were more elegant than goto. It was tough to accept
(I'd been told since I started learning to program that goto was inelegant)
but I had to face the facts.
On 11/27/05, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> At 22:18 27/11/2005, Nicolas Bérard Nault wrote:
> >Goto exists in C. If you affirm that goto should
> >not exist in PHP because it gives the
> >opportunity to screw their code to programmers,
> >are you also affirming that C programmers are smarter than PHP
> programmers ?
>
> I wouldn't make any statement regarding the
> intelligence level of C and PHP developers, since
> there are plenty of idiots and smart people on
> both camps; It has everything to do with
> training and experience. And the training and
> experience levels of the average PHP developer is
> nowhere near that of the average C/C++ developer.
>
> Sorry for repeating it for the 1001st time in the
> few years, but PHP did not get to where it is
> today because we added everything and the kitchen
> sink, that's Perl. I would *really* be great if
> people realized that PHP the way it is now is
> successful, but it's not inherent to the PHP
> project. Not every bunch of features we pack
> under the name "PHP" will retain this level of success.
>
> We *can* screw it if we go in the wrong
> direction, and adding redundant features which
> are useful in rare cases and much more likely to
> be abused than to be properly used is a good step
> in that direction. A lot of people are saying we
> already went too far with PHP 5, and that's
> arguable. It's clear, however, that adding more
> and more language features and making PHP more
> and more complex is not a good recipe.
>
> Zeev
>
>
--
Nicolas Bérard Nault (nicobn@gmail.com)
"Maybe nature is fundamentally ugly, chaotic and complicated. But if it's
like that, then I want out." -- Steven Weinberg (prix Nobel de physique,
1979).