Talk:PHP/Archive 3

message: The middle third at least is probably not suitable for this article. You're not reading an encyclopedia to learn how to program. The issue is where to put it. As for the huge list of modules at the end, I'm just going to delete that I think. Chris Cunningham 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. I think that the learning how to program bit is more suited to Wikibooks. Rob.daemon 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mess that is this article 

message: ::If 'register_globals' is enabled in PHP's configuration file, PHP automatically puts the values of Post, Get, Cookie and Session Parameters into standard variables, which can be a significant security risk for scripts that assume those variables are undefined. Other languages, such as ASP.NET, include functionality to detect and clean harmful cross-site scripting or other malicious code automatically, whereas PHP does not.
First of all this article is not named "PHP vs. ASP".
Secondly, this is quite ridiculous. The thought that the fact that register_globals is optional makes PHP a lesser language is not a valid point. PHP is a more fine-tuned language and is not as heavy as ASP for the same reason. I cannot see this as a weak point, or in fact a point at all. 
It also appears that ASP is the prefered language in the article, making the article subjective proposing PHP is a side-line language. Kakugo 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors opinions (on PHP) don't matter. Not mine, not yours. What matters is quoting valid sources. I have found a source that repeats this criticism: http://www.technosailor.com/lessons-in-web-security-php-and-registerglobals/. "let’s look at one of the weaknesses of a common scripting language, PHP. This exploit is actually old and has been closed by default in every PHP release for the past few years."  This does seem a good citation, and a valid item to include under criticisms. However, I don't know PHP well enough to draft a paragraph with sufficient accuracy. Please don't be defensive. It is the job of this article to repeat criticisms, provided they have suitable sources. Furthermore it is the job of editors to make sure that in the article their opinion cannot be deduced! Notinasnaid 12:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. Reading that, it sounds a bit combative. Sorry, it wasn't supposed to be; just emphasising it's an editors duty to repeat criticisms that are well sourced even if we, personally, believe them to be nonsense. Notinasnaid 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, it sounds extremely ignorant and cuntish. Good day? Kakugo 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a language weakness, it's a developer weakness. --Streaky 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critism Continued 

message: I seem to have accidentally made a raft of changes to the article, under the guise of "copy editing". Not entirely sure how I did this, but I guess I must have used an out of date original, because the history shows many more changes than I actually typed. Sorry for any extra work I generated. There was one bit I would like to propose for reworking and inclusion. In usage: "PHP generally runs on a web server, taking PHP code and (optionally) user choices (typically from a form) as its input and creating Web pages as output."  The part in italics is new. I feel that as originally written, it isn't clear how a PHP program could be used as part of an interactive system, since the PHP code itself is fixed, and fixed input would give (usually) fixed output. The resulting language was indeed clumsy. Notinasnaid 09:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems obvious that a language which supports variables supports some method of input. It might be valuable to mention the link between forms and variables somewhere in the article, but a set of parentheses in an otherwise clear introductory sentence is not the right place. Chris Cunningham 09:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: I have posted a link to coderwiki.com twice and twice it has been removed with no more explanation than spam. coderwiki is a wiki thats looking to document all languages. we're starting up and need other programmers to help write articles. our users and i are investing time and money to bring this service to people free. if there is a better place to inform programmers of the site, or perhaps a better way to address it, i would like to know. thx
--da404LewZer 07:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a promotional device.  Your effort sounds useful, but links to nascent sources, especially those that don't currently extend the content of the subject, are almost always removed rather quickly. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coderwiki 

message: The criticism section is not an appropriate place for fans of the language to make promises about future corrections. Write a well-sourced "future developments" section or wait until PHP 6 is actually released. I've done a fair amount of reduction of the crits section already without having to resort to clapping my hands for the future. Chris Cunningham 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronabop's point is a sourced fact that is concise and corresponds to the criticism.  I have no issue with keeping it.  It doesn't require a fan to point out that there are verified plans by PHP's developers to correct something that is criticized. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A new section should be made for future development activities. The criticisms section is not an appropriate place to state future intentions. It reads like a lame attempt to disclaim current flaws. Chris Cunningham 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed to a new section, but the concise addition to the criticisms section on the verified response by the PHP developers that addresses the criticism is all right, and I will agree to that if Ronabop wants to reinstate it. Thank you. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The crits section on here was originally unbearable, but it currently does a pretty good job of evaluating what it is that prevents PHP for being a universal Web scripting language. That other articles don't have crits doesn't necessarily affect this article; to some extent PHP's crits are due to the language implementation being immature in many ways compared to its contemporaries and it's natural that it might have a longer crit section. On top of that, you're looking at the Framework articles, not the Language ones (vb.net, java, python, perl). Chris Cunningham 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Please don't include statements like "amongst thousands of others" in lists of software, it never reads well. PHP is hardly the first language to operate as a filter, and isn't the "de facto standard" for Web development at all. I've reverted the whole lot because I couldn't find any part which made the article read better or more informative without seeming like an advert. Chris Cunningham 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, you could call PHP de facto and not be far off the mark, I wouldn't agree with such a statement being included for other more obvious reasons - namely it being flame-bait for one --Streaky 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I didn't think the Criticisms of PHP are so noteable to make up nearly half this article. Coderx 05:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the apologists keep coming in and bloating it up with excuses about things being off by default or fixed in some future release or whatever. All the apologies need to be removed, all the PHP6 stuff needs to move to its own section (or article), and the rest of the article needs to be beefed up to address the role PHP plays in more than an introductory manner. The article is incomplete, but it certainly isn't pushing an opinion just because the criticism section (which used to be twice as long) is rather more complete than the rest of the article. Chris Cunningham 08:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a stub for the PHP6 wishlist pony people to expand upon how it's going to fix everything. Chris Cunningham 08:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I tend to agree with the original poster, that the Criticisms section is too big. It's filled up with criticisims which is not specific to PHP, is not valid for PHP-versions released the last 2-3 years etc. This makes it silly in my pov and it looks more like some people are trying to push their pov of PHP as a crappy language, rather than create an informative article, with valid criticisms.Jerazol 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed three criticisms. I removed register globals and magic quotes because both have been disabled by default since 2002. I also removed a criticism that discusses mod_php on shared hosting systems which I do not think is relevant to PHP as a whole, but rather to the implementation of PHP by some hosting companies. --Rballou 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the disputed ones gone; the rest are PHP-specific and commonly brought up. I've removed the POV tag but left the refs one on the section. Chris Cunningham 08:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not NPOV 

message: "Criticisms of PHP include those general criticisms ascribed to other scripting programming languages and dynamically typed languages. Some specific criticisms of PHP include the following:
...
*"PHP's type checking is very loose, potentially causing problems. Variables in PHP are not limited to one type (it is possible to assign an integer value to a variable, then assign a string value, and then assign an array to it). Because type checking using the == operator is not strict, the === operator was introduced to ensure a strict type match. Functions are also not allowed to (directly) force the types of their arguments, unless they are arrays or objects."
The problem here is that the introduction to the list says that the list will address PHP-specific problems, not those attributed to dynamically typed languages. This item is one of the latter and doesn't belong in the list. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 14:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part was probably folded in from a larger rant about functions at some point. Feel free to remove it. The larger problem is that of PHP not really caring what type something is even after it's been initialised. Chris Cunningham 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism again