Talk:PHP/Archive 2

message: I've read in some places that 2,147,483,648 angels can dance on the head of a PHP script, but elsewhere, I've read that it's only 255 angels. But does it matter? Can't we all stop following the script and simply get with the program?
Seriously, there's some discussion going on here that would be far better placed over a couple of pitchers of beer rather than in an alleged encyclopedia because it's the sort of debate that has no empirical answer and won't ever be settled.
Atlant 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Angels dancing on PHP pinheads

message: From this section...
Magic Quotes are turned off by default in PHP 5. For more information, see the security section in the Magic Quotes chapter of the PHP manual.
Where on php.net does it say that magic quotes are disabled by default in PHP 5?  It doesn't say anything about it in the security section that's linked to...
:My error, sorry.  I was looking at the contents of the php.ini-recommended and confusing it with the php.ini-dist, especially since the former says, "This is the recommended, PHP 5-style version of the php.ini-dist file."  That sentence should either be removed, or changed to reflect the fact that magic_quotes_gpc = Off is a recommendation and not a default in PHP5. —Miles →☎ 21:28, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
::I was just looking through the PHP page, and saw this sentence.  I stopped by here to start a discussion about it, but I see that there already has been one, with no changes made.  Therefore, I'm just going to modify the sentence. --Powerlord 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic Quotes Disabled by Default? 

message: I noticed that this was not in the libraries list. I think it is a library (not totally sure what a library actually is) and it is documented. Should it be added to the list? Borb 11:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mysqli 

message: Would anyone agree that it's time to create a new article for this list and take it out of this article for good? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 18:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree.  The applications list is missing a lot and needs its own space to grow.  In fact, I think this same argument could be made for the "criticisms" section.  On that note, I'm been thinking of an article balancing criticisms with some best practices and solutions.  Anybody is free to beat me to it ;) Vector4F 02:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications built with PHP

message: "Further, unlike many other languages (like C++ and Java), arrays are able to hold objects of varying types, including other arrays." (See PHP#Popularity) Please explain, I am a first year Java programmer and know virtually no C++, but I thought in Java you can make varying types of arrays. Like
 String [] str = new String [7];
 str[1] = "hi";
 str[2] = "5";
 str[3] = "get it?";
Or does the writer mean you can change the variable type after it is declared. Like replace "5" with 5 (the integer). Also, the writer says in Java and C++, you can't have an arrays of arrays. I know this it not true. "String [][] myDoubleStrArray = new String [6][8];" is completely legal in java. So is "Array [] arrOfArrs = new Array [4];" I have never tried an array of arrays of arrays, though. -Hyad 05:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*You don't declare variables in PHP, and they are dynamically typed, so you can change their types all you want. Elements of a particular array don't have to be of the same type, and this type can indeed be an array itself. --IByte 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHP can hold arrays of varying types, but C++ and Java can't? 

message: With regard to what it says in the Criticisms section:
Some default settings and features are said to be confusing and the cause of frequent errors.
I think this statement adds nothing without examples. I'd suggest either adding examples or removing the sentence altogether. (Being a bit biased as I've used PHP for years, no examples immediately come to mind.) --IByte 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing default settings? 

message: The old meaning of the PHP acronym (Personal Home Page) has recently been added twice to the introductory paragraph (I reverted it once). However, that duplicates information in the History section, and I feel that's a better place for it than the intro. Instead of starting a revert war with multiple persons, I'd like to know whether more people think it shouldn't be in the intro.
:I agree with you. That name is unuseful history that doesn't make sense in the intro.
:Totally, no need for it. --Streaky 02:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep old name in introduction? 

message: I haven't visited the article lately, so I have to ask: What's up with the elephant logo? Was it really introduced lately? The php.net website doesn't seem to use it. Either way, first it made me think "Hmm, rips off PostgreSQL" and then I though "this seems suspiciously uncyclopedic". So is it the real logo or what? --Wwwwolf 18:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it back. Googling for "elephant" on php.net found no relevant hits. The official logo page at php.net does not show any elephants. Googling on "PHP elephant" returns only this WP page and someone on a PG mailing list asking where such a logo exists. Since php.net is presumably the canonical source of all things php, I reverted the logo and removed the "elephant as mascot" line as well. Turnstep 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephant logo? 

message: The entire popularity section still seems very POV and un-encylopedic. Derivations of the word "popular" are used four times (including the title). The paragraph also tries to equate "install base" with "usage base", which is disingeneous at best. PHP may be "popular", but we'll need to do better than saying that it is installed on a lot of boxes. I think the entire section should be removed: with perhaps a few things salvaged and put into other sections. Turnstep 15:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity and POV 

message: Do we really need two of those? I think one is quite sufficient. Shinobu 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. — mark ✎ 17:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The two examples show the two very different methods of php programming - the first shows code interspersed with html; the second shows html with embedded code. I think it is important to show these main two ways of doing things in php, to exemplify that php can be used in a way that would suit a c/java developer or alternatively can be used in a way that would suit an html developer wishing to add dynamic content to his or her code. --jackohare 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as showing embedded vs non-embedded code, I think it would be much more effective to have 2 smaller, simpler examples. All the extra code about the beer song adds a lot of white noise. Would anyone object to replacing the two beer examples with two smaller ones? Would it be worthwhile to still keep the second beer example? --Flash 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  99 BoB Examples 

message: Following Wikipedia:External links, does the article need this many external links?  Apart from ELEVEN "resources", I counted FIVE online forums, FOUR users groups, SIX advocacy sites, and FIVE Open Directory Project folders!  Are PHP's OOP abilities so complex that we recommend ELEVEN links for more information?!  Are these all reliable sources anyway?  -- Perfecto  00:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the External links section is longer than need be. Perhaps some of the support entires could be removed? -- Scohoust 12:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links overload 

message: I thought there was way too many things in the introduction so I removed some stuff and put it into separate section. Now, is LAMP, WIMP, and WAMP really necessary up there? -- WB 06:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't think this belongs in the introduction. Someone with no knowledge about php would likely be intimidated by all the acronyms, and if they actually wanted to know what WAMP was, they would look up WAMP, not php. I don't know that WIMP and WAMP are even very common acronyms. It seems like this content should be moved, if not removed. --jackohare 18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article (as it is now), is very confusing to anyone that has no idea what php is, and wants to know what it is. It needs a thorough trim. Also, I can understand you want an example script like the 99 bottles of beer one, but why 2? Just pick one (I'd personally pick the second one, as it shows better how you can embed it into regular html). The comment block (or part of) of the first script might be able to fit in there too. --Jonne 17:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion about the two 99 bottles of beer examples above. I have to disagree with you on this, for the reasons I put forth above. --jackohare 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction acronym dumping? 

message: The link list following "For more on PHP's OOP abilities, see:" is building up with external links that probably don't belong in the article.  This list should point to a couple leading articles or tutorials, and that's it.  Anyone have a problem if I do a little snipping? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 07:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the cruft, most of which were links to PHP frameworks.  These should be added to DMOZ (Open Directory Project). — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link cruft building up

message: "# comment -- its use is discouraged" - I've never seen this being discouraged, just "not the way most people do things". Am I missing something? ElliottHird 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  # comment discouraged? 

message: The "Experiences of Using PHP in Large Websites" advocacy link is out of date. A lot of the points raised in the article are no longer valid under current versions of PHP. (4.3-5.1) The article was written soon after superglobals were introduced and he talks about backwards compatibilty with PHP3 and PHP2. The article makes many references to problems that are only in PHP 2 and 3. PHP3 is old and very few people use it. PHP2 is virturally extinct. I know hat it is the only negative article about PHP under advocacy, but it brings up points that aren't big concerns today. At least, there should be a notice saying that some of the points in the article are for old versions of PHP.
PHP 3 is virtually extinct, PHP 2 is extinct tbh. --Streaky 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Experiences of Using PHP in Large Websites" like is out of date 

message: What is an "open-source language"? Don't almost all languages have a public spec? In which way is PHP more open than other languages?
:php is considered more open source for this reason:
:The entire project is open source. You cant say the same about ColdFusion or ASP..
:In PHP, you could take something like the str_replace() function, (and if you know c) you could go in and modify the function to do exactly what you need, and recompile it for yourself. now str_replace() will behave different than everyone elses. That would cause alot of 'porting' problems, but you get the idea.
:As for open-source language, hrm.. i assume it's for the above reason and the fact that a plethora of php source is avail at no cost.
:--da404LewZer 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source language 

message: damn what kind of a discussion is this, look at some of the modern forums they are totaly different, i cant orient myself here ,thats a total mess of text, i cant see what is a new post and what is reply and so on.this has to be changed
--previous unsigned comment by User:81.243.24.36
:Perhaps someone with more experience can organize and archive this talk page. I agree that the discussion page on Wikipedia articles is not always easy to follow. It helps when everyone follows the same format. For example:
:* creating a new section for a new topic, as you did
:* replies all following the same format, like indenting with a ":" 
:* everyone should sign their comments, with a --~~~~
:* know the basics of editing
: --Unixguy 11:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  damn i cant  orient myself in that page