Talk:PHP/Archive 5

message: As I look around Wikipedia, all the articles on programming languages I see are in the following form: "Something (programming language)." Here are some examples:
*Python (programming language)
*Java (programming language)
*C (programming language)
I'm thinking the PHP should be moved to PHP (programming language). Any thoughts?
Gutworth 03:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this is disambiguation. Python f.ex. is also a snake, Java is also an island, and a type of coffee, C... well, is the letter C. PHP does not have any other such things with similar name/abriviation of particluar noteworthyness. As you can see from PHP (disambiguation), the list consists of relatively low interest items. It makes sense then, to keep PHP where it is. Other examples of this is such things as XML, IBM, HTML etc. Jerazol 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article 

message: Is PHP a standardized language with a full formal specification, or is it just defined by whatever the sole implementation happens to support at the moment? This information needs to be stated in the article, just as such info can be found in the articles for most other programming languages. Looking around on the official website, I can't find anything referring to a specification. Herorev 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PHP language is specified only by the PHP manual. The language is only developed by the PHP group and the manual is always updated accordingly. In fact, every PHP book I've seen always says that it is not meant to replace the PHP manual because it's so good.Gutworth 03:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language specification 

message: Can someone who knows how to do this get this clown blocked. This is the 6th time he's been vandalising this article in the last 2 days. Jerazol 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 66.162.199.7 

message: "mod_php" redirects here but doesn't appear in the current article. --anon :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.102.108.52 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mod_php, PHP as CGI ? 

message: Since phtml redirects to php, perhaps some explanation somewhere about the name would be good? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GavinTing (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHTML 

message: I propose that the article mention that recursive acronyms are retarded 64.221.248.17 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this would be the correct place to raise this issue. The article on recursive acronyms would probably be more appropriate, although you would probably have to rephrase the criticism, in order for it to be more encyclopedic. Jerazol 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for discussion for improvement of the PHP article 

message: In keeping current, default global variables and magic quotes have been switched off (default globals) and completely removed (magic quotes) in new versions. As such it is no longer of concern to the PHP community in general.
If someone wanted to start a security section for legacy then that may be a better place to put this, but at this time it does not belong in a criticism section. 
I am removing these points. 
Brad 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, it is a long standing criticism of PHP and deserves to still be in the article.  If you don't want it in the criticism section then you make a section about it. Cburnett 14:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, if you feel that it must be included (and I don't disagree, for histories sake) then I will place it in its own section. However it is misleading to claim it is still a problem when a lot of action to rectify the problem has been taken and all the major distributions have solved the somewhat large problem. Brad 14:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  It explicitly says the list is not applicable to current releases.  "This list includes criticisms that have been rectified in recent versions."  Furthermore, it says that 4.2.0 turned it off by default.  If you read that and come away with the understanding that it applies to current releases then your reading comprehension skills are very lacking.  Cburnett 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I got myself confused.  register globals mentions when it was turned off but not magic quotes.  I would certainly support elaborating on register globals with regards to historic use vs. current.  Regardless, it is still a criticism. Cburnett 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More changes 

message: "PHP does not enforce the declaration of variables prior to their use, and variables which have not been initialized can have operations (such as concatenation) performed on them; an operation on an uninitialized variable raises an E_NOTICE level error, but this is hidden by default."
Is an argument that again does not seem like valid criticism. The fact that PHP does not require declaration is a feature, and not a bad one if you know about it. This is most likely written by someone not well versed in the use of dynamically declared variables, and as such has not relevance to the language itself. Whether this is a good implementation or not isn't discussed.
I am removing it. 
Brad 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you going on about?  Just because it's a "feature" means that it can't be criticized?  Give me a break! Cburnett 14:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly a disadvantage to the language and unless it is further defined has no place in what is meant to be a factual document. Brad 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah woah woah there, chief.  "criticism" means "disadvantage" now?  Double "give me a break"! Cburnett 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the document is structured is way to miseading to new comer developers using this is a resource. Unless we break this up and explain that it is an opinion and what grounding parties have behind the statement. Brad 07:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism, by definition, means people's opinion.  Cburnett 12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will re-write that section to explain the different elements more carefully, but there must be some leverage to be able to say "This is only a problem for legacy applications" and classify it as such. Also the section currently presents coding preferences as absolute and without proper debate it makes it confusing for a reader. As stated previously, I will re-write this. Brad 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use "legacy applications" carefully.  I think it would be better to simply state what version it was changed and leave things alone that have yet to be published.    Also, what do you mean about "coding preferences"?  My point above is that criticism is criticism and it isn't your job (or anyone's) to qualify it. Cburnett 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More changes being added 

message: I just made a change tot he objects section but I cannot get my code sample to format correctly. If someone could just try get that looking right I will write the rest of the article.Brad 08:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just prefix each line (even empty ones) with a space and it will be shown as preformatted text. Cburnett 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mate Brad 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I made the changes from IP 138.130.75.164 to the objects section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradml (talk • contribs) 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for reference 

message: I believe the constructor example is over complex. I am going to just simplify it (unless there are objections, then I will but with an argument). Brad 11:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the encyclopedic value of adding basic syntax and limited examples, however I personally think the article is losing its encyclopedic value with the new code examples. -- I already forgot  talk  12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AOL. This article should after all not be a tutorial. Jerazol 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, A user put the constructor stuff in but it was not in any way useful for simply displaying how they work in PHP so I just thought a re-write would be a good idea. I think the Objects section is nice and beefy now. Let's move on... Brad 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructor Over complicated 

message: You can't remove a valid, working example like that... Without it it becomes MORE complicated. I am changing back Brad 12:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the examples added to the OOP section is way over the top. If we were to be consistent with this, and add similar examples to illustrate every detail of PHP, this article would be unusable. I also removed again the example usage you had reverted, as this is redundant. The example should only serve as exactly that, an example of the syntax, not an explanation of how it is used. It is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the concept, and understands the example, or that he goes to the relevant article on WP to read up on it. Jerazol 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was to help the user reading grasp the concept of what is being shown. Your reasoning for reducing the size of the Objects section is seriously flawed. Just because other sections aren't as in depth does not mean we would not present information to represent the capabilities of the language. I feel rather then making the article less useful we should try to actually get that FA rating by providing a plethora of valuable information in a structured and explanatory way. I don't feel that we should re-write the language documentation, I feel we should define the structure of it to the best of ability. Brad 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, that you are writing a tutorial on the language, explaining how to use language features. That should not be the objective of the article. Jerazol 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a tutorial.  Instead of just showing how to do it, I'd like to see the sections enhanced by comparing & contrasted to other OOP languages.  For example, my cursory page search didn't yield anything for "inheritance".  PHP has only single inheritance unlike several other OOP languages.  Nor does it have the "friend" concept like C++.  It states in the lead sentence that PHP is reflective but this is never embellished upon in the objects section.  I'm just listing things that can be added, compared, and contrasted, not complaining.  Kudos to anyone who gets to this stuff before I do. :) Cburnett 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Extendor section changed