That is a fault of history OF the current language.

Post #117,727 by FuManChu 9/13/03 2:17:15 PM Reply	That is a fault of history OF the current language. But I AM Napoleon!!!!! --Napoleon, in "Napoleon Bunny-Part", 1956 "There's a set of rules that anything that was in the world when you were born is normal and natural. Anything invented between when you were 15 and 35 is new and revolutionary and exciting, and you'll probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things." Douglas Adams
Post #117,765 by tablizer 9/14/03 1:49:36 AM Reply	So you reject a language because ...they made a bad decision in the past which was later corrected? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #117,782 by FuManChu 9/14/03 4:37:02 PM Reply	Not at all. So you reject a language because...they made a bad decision in the past which was later corrected? Nope. I'm not in the business of rejecting languages. But Wade seemed to imply that the "bad decisions" were exacerbated by the structure of PHP itself. In domains where I don't have direct analytical experience, I have to trust someone else's analysis; the world's too big to decide everything on my own from square one. I don't use PHP, but I have experienced similar environmental issues in my own life. Wade's description fits patterns I have observed; I trust his analysis and conclusions more often than yours as a rule. You want a more detailed discussion, you'd have to talk to Wade. "There's a set of rules that anything that was in the world when you were born is normal and natural. Anything invented between when you were 15 and 35 is new and revolutionary and exciting, and you'll probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things." Douglas Adams
Post #118,175 by tablizer 9/19/03 2:04:09 AM Reply	not very nice wording, if you ask me but I have experienced similar environmental issues in my own life. Wade's description fits patterns I have observed; I trust his analysis and conclusions more often than yours as a rule. A more diplomatic way to say such may be something like, "His thinking style and experience seem to better match my own than yours". My techniques work (at least if you think like I do). Tables are objectively more compact information-wise because they use context instead of localized attribute labels/methods to specify what an attribute is. And, I think most would agree that one can see more row-wise and column-wise patterns in attributes as a table than as a bunch of linearized class attributes or XML. I am simply applying these universal truths to software development. Plus, one can do relational algebra and other table-browser tricks on tables to customize your view of the attributes. You are not stuck with Bill Gates' or Gozling's view of the friggen code. TOP gives me the freedom to see bunches of attributes as I want to see them, filtered row-wise, column-wise, and join-wise how I want. I become the master of my working domain, not Gozling. It seems so obvious to me. Why most of you want that tangled, static, linearized, 60's navigational-DB-style mess, I have no friggen idea. You people have weird brains. I better clone myself 100 times before more OO and array heads reproduce and kill off the last table fans. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #118,181 by FuManChu 9/19/03 2:42:37 AM Reply	Then you might have guessed I wasn't trying to be diplomatic

Welcome to IWETHEY!