IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I'd say parallel development
Shows the difference between an OSS project and a corporate gig. Java started with a design. PHP grew up from a hack.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New I dispute that claim
Java started as a hack - a toy language to run in VCRs and such.

Since it was meant to be a throwaway, not a lot of thought went into it I think.



"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."     --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."     --George W. Bush
New Exactly.
I usually summarize my view of Java something like this: "Java was some one's neat little school project that other people took entirely too seriously and foisted upon more people who didn't deserve to be so encumbered."
bcnu,
Mikem

Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
New History of PHP in question
Shows the difference between an OSS project and a corporate gig. Java started with a design. PHP grew up from a hack.

My impression is that OOP was added on to PHP as an afterthought because one of the cofounders of it does not think much of OOP. As PHP became more popular, more people wanted Java-like OOP capabilities, perhaps out of habit.

Similarly the originators of Java didn't give much thought to meta abilities in Java, and the later changes to add it seem hacky to many. It is a matter of priorities of the originators.
________________
oop.ismad.com
New PHP started as less then a scripting language
The first version of PHP was just a way to embedd server side tags in pages for things like hit counters.

People wanted more and more features added, till somebody eventually added an IF tag and the race was off to create a real languages.

As PHP was used for more and more complex projects, the capacity for OO programming was more desirable.

OO is overkill for a lot of trivial web projects. But if you need to create a truely complex and powerful system, it is a big advantage.

There is a reason PHP is on version 5 when most other languages only have two or three versions no matter how old they are.

Jay
New Them 'er fightin' words
OO is overkill for a lot of trivial web projects. But if you need to create a truely complex and powerful system, it is a big advantage.

Yeah right. Wherezduproof. Let's not go there today.
________________
oop.ismad.com
     Tilting at windmills: classes vs objects - (drewk) - (35)
         Er, no. - (admin) - (14)
             Well ... - (drewk) - (11)
                 They're wrong. - (admin) - (9)
                     I'd say parallel development - (drewk) - (5)
                         I dispute that claim - (tuberculosis) - (1)
                             Exactly. - (mmoffitt)
                         History of PHP in question - (tablizer) - (2)
                             PHP started as less then a scripting language - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                 Them 'er fightin' words - (tablizer)
                     I think PHP's upgrades are just practical. - (static) - (2)
                         By "class variables" you mean "static" class variables? -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                             Er, yes. - (static)
                 What to say if someone says that... - (ben_tilly)
             Nit - (dshellman) - (1)
                 Actually, that's not a nit - (admin)
         a class is a type of object - (daemon) - (2)
             It's tables all the way down. :-) - (ChrisR) - (1)
                 ICLRPD (new thread) - (Steve Lowe)
         Very astute observation - (tuberculosis)
         Re: Tilting at windmills: classes vs objects - (systems) - (15)
             I suspected that programming would eventually converge - (Ashton)
             Do you honestly believe that this is from TCL??? - (ben_tilly) - (13)
                 Amen - (broomberg)
                 Re: Do you honestly believe that this is from TCL??? - (systems) - (11)
                     think you had better be a developer - (daemon) - (3)
                         Funny; I was thinking the opposite ;) -NT - (FuManChu) - (2)
                             Ive met lots of developers that have no clue - (daemon)
                             Neither - (broomberg)
                     Let me get this straight - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                         very loud VD (clap clap clap) -NT - (daemon)
                         Then let me elaborate - (systems) - (3)
                             "Systems", you should meet Bryce. Bryce, this is "Systems". -NT - (CRConrad)
                             BTW, "Systems": Lay off the exclamation marks. Have some ... - (CRConrad)
                             You sound like the Rincewind of programming -NT - (ben_tilly)
                     For scripting, TCL is poo. -NT - (pwhysall)

Loopholes and fine print are there for a reason, and it's not to make you happy.
105 ms