Going Dynamic with PHP

Five-Oh writes to tell us that IBM DeveloperWorks has an interesting article about the OO advantages of PHP V's new features. From the article: "PHP V5's new object-oriented programming features have raised the level of functionality in this popular language significantly. Learn how to use the dynamic features of PHP V5 to create objects that bend to fit your needs."

Comments

PHP's Comeupance

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

I rediscovered PHP last week after a year-long hiatus, and was surpised to find that it approacheth Java in reflection and information hiding; that said, there are some lamentable lacunæ:

• Class constants must be string literals and only string literals (no variables, arrays or objects).
• Type-hinting is confined to arrays and objects (feature?).

The unadorned output of phpDocumentor, PHP's analog to JavaDoc, is also suboptimal; for documenting PHP, therefore, go Doxygen.

Re:PHP's Comeupance

[Hal_Porter]

Dear (1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1),

I must say, Sir, that I salute you for your post. Not only is in Informative, it is also well drafted in the Queens English, not in the debased language of Internetland. Furthermore, you have managed to obtain the coveted pole position of posters, so to speak. As I write this epistle of congratulations, I shall drink a toast of finest port wine to you, and I wish that your correspondence with the world shall continue for all eternity.

If I may be so bold as to trouble you with two requests, it would be these. Firstly, may I post a copy of your memorandum above the post to which I fasten my servants when I whip them for dumb insolence and/or sundry grammatical errors, including the splitting of infinitives or the use of the accursed Internet language? Secondly, my wife is expecting our first child, conceived soon after she spent a night in my servants quarters, teaching them virtue of prayer. Would it be presumptive of me to command her to name her baby (1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1). We are unsure at present of the sex of the baby, since we have emigrated to the 19th Century to escape the linguistic slovenliness of the later epochs, but we feel that such a name would distinguish a child of either gender?

Yours, etc
Hal Porter, esq.

Re:PHP's Comeupance

[sweetnjguy29]

Learned a new word: lacunæ (latin for lake) -- in this context, a gap. Well done, sire!

Experiences

[truthsearch]

It's a huge step forward for OO development in PHP.

BUT it's still got all the crud of PHP4. For those transitioning from PHP4 objects one great feature is the new warning when using the older style of classes. However all of those things people find quirky about PHP4 still exist. For example, now you can force a function parameter to be a certain type of object, but not a basic type. You still can't even fully overload a function.

My view is that it's two steps forward and one step back. They need to consider deprecating features and making a php.ini option to not allow the use of any deprecated features.

Re:Experiences

[Tenareth]

Yeah, the inability to scale is the primary reason all the porn sites use it...

And why we have a lot of high traffic sites that have no issue with it...

Threading != Scalability. Threading is only needed if you do certain types of tasks that need it.

In programming, there is no silver bullet, there are lots of tools suited for different jobs, PHP fits in a lot of those places, Java in others, other languages elsewhere. Threading isn't a "Oh, I'll multithread it, that'll make it faster" type of magic button.

Re:PHP 4 V. 5

[drpimp]

This page actually has alot of links of changes and new features. What's New

Re:PHP 4 V. 5

[lbft]

There's a good summary on Zend: http://www.zend.com/php5/andi-book-excerpt.php

Basically, PHP 5 adds proper object support (think Java-style) including iterators for objects, and new extensions add good XML support, SOAP, SQLite, better MySQL support (prepared statements, OO interface, etc.)

I'd recommend reading Adam Trachtenberg's book Upgrading to PHP 5 if you're familiar with PHP 4.

OOP

[onion2k]

I'm a fan of using objects in the right place .. but to suggest they increase the functionality of a language is simply wrong. They allow for better (well, different) organisation of code, easier reuse, and improved encapsulation over procedural or functional coding styles, but they don't actually allow you to do anything that can't be done using any other approach. The functionality of the language remains the same.

Re:OOP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I don't want to start an OOP war, but am just suggesting that people not use objects just because somebody says to (unless they are your boss and order you).

I am with you on this one, although, unlike you, I used to be swept up at one time in all the early OO hype to a degree (back in the Smalltalk days - which by the way is probably the only coherent OO environment), only to realise, by experience, that it was for the most part just that: unsubstantiated hype. Object Orientation has applications, notably in situations close to its original aims of simulation of physical universe (as in the Simula language which started it all), which in modern software is found in things like PC games. But this paradigm has been overused, abused and stretched beyond its breaking point to try to cover all possible cases, no matter how ill fitting. And in the process it has consistently failed to deliver on most of its promises (other then to pad pockets of various charlatans and OO "framework, IDE, grill and taco stand" makers). My experience has thought me that contrary to what OOP priests wish us to believe, "complexity hiding" (usually by masking it by more OO-gunk complexity) is not the answer to reusability, cooperative maintenance and so on. The answer is: simplicity. That is the most maintainable code is the one which can be fully understood, with ease, by the programmer. OOP does not do that. In fact it introduces a whole new gamut of problems dealing with the hidden workings of pyramidal heaps of classes found in any OOP "framework", each with its own weird quirks and inconsistencies, from which you are supposed to "derrive" your own, as long as you adhere to a million of unwritten and poorly documented rules of use of these, supposedly, "reusable" and "extensible" components. Not to mention that it actively encourages creation of massive, incomprehensible class jungles as one can easily see in places like the JDK.

Speaking of PHP, its success can be attributed to its simplicity, ease of use and short learning curve. If they keep continuing to "innovate" new piles of ever more trendy crap into the language, it will soon (already is?) lose this advantage. It won't be long before someone comes up with another simple server-side language to replace the morass and the enthusiatic crowds will move onto this new "lighning fast, low footprint" language and begin to "improve it". Rinse, repeat.

Re:OOP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Let me take this silly argument to its full comical potential:

If you're a programmer, I guarantee that you're using SEP (Spiritual Extrusion Programming) even if you don't use a SEP language.

Consider the Unix read() function, which can read from any file descriptor: regular file, block or character special, socket, and so on. If you were to write such a function in C, you'd write some code to determine the underlying type of descriptor. Then, based on that type, you'd call a helper function - read_file(), read_special(), read_socket() - to perform the actual read. Guess what? That's SEP. The file descriptor is the Spititual Manifestation of a Concept. The code at the top of read() is determining the object type (or Spiritual Element). And the helper functions are Spiritual Invocations. If this is a big project, odds are you'll put all the helper functions for sockets in socket.c, for files in file.c, and so on. And there we have Spiritual Encapsulation (of the namespace variety) too.

As noted many times, you can write an SEP in any language. It's just easier to do it in a language that's designed for it.

And so on, etc.

Newsflash: all of the concepts you describe are 1) long in existence before your favourite paradigm arrived on the scene so that you can try to contort them into it, and 2) can be interpreted ad infinitum with any of the millions of "paradigms" one can concoct on the spot. That is because your paradigm is merely a perspective and not an universal (and only) truth. The whole point of abstract formulations, such as computer software, is that they can conform to nearly infinite number of perspectives and can be projected onto the real, physical universe in an equally large number of ways, which is what makes this whole Information Technology thing so powerful.

But I fear that long after OOP has been relegated to the dusty bin of history, some ctr2sprt of the future will still argue about how you are really always writing "Quantum Parallax" code, even if you are you are not ...

Hosting services stuck on PHP4

[cknudsen]

I'd love to take advantage of some of the PHP5 features. However, most hosting services are still stuck on PHP4. How long has it been now? I am the project manager for WebCalendar, and just like during the transition from PHP3 to PHP4, it's going to be some time before we can drop "legacy" support for PHP4 and take advantage of the cool new features of PHP5. So, for now, WebCalendar and other open source apps will have to stick to PHP4.
FYI.... PHP developer articles updated daily:
http://www.devpointer.net/browse.php?l=p&t1=1
RSS:
http://www.devpointer.net/browse.php?l=p&t1=1&fmt= rss1

Not The Best Choice For Maintainable Code

[tres]

From the article:

Dynamic objects have a lot of power, but they also carry significant risk. First, the complexity of classes increases tremendously when you start writing magic methods. These classes are harder to understand, debug, and maintain. In addition, as integrated development environments (IDEs) become more intelligent, they may experience problems with dynamic classes such as these because when they look up methods on a class, they won't find them.

This is what I was thinking the entire time I was reading the article. I mean, it's one thing to have to whip up some small project for yourself, it's another to build a project that is maintainable by a group of people.

I'd bet that Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike (The Practice of Programming) would probably recommend against using it. It doesn't provide for clarity, nor does it simplify, it just makes things "easier" for the guy that writes the original code.

Re:PHP 4 V. 5

[Foofoobar]

PHP5's object are passed via reference by default. Public/Private function and variables in classes are also now supported. The language as a whole has better OOP support and the underlying engine is alot faster as well.

Also, some deprecated functionallity has finally been dropped. All in all, I've been using PHP5 for awhile now and everything works alot faster as a whole (as I use it with Apache 2 as well).

One note that might concern you, PHP5 does not come with MySQL built in anymore. You either have to download the update or compile it yourself. It's nice for those who want to use something aside from MySQL and don't want to have to keep it the module loaded constantly but it's also a pain for the beginner hobbyist who has never had to deal with installing the MySQL module for PHP.

Kinda Like Ruby

[pkulak]

So, it's got some of the features of Ruby now, plus a whole lot of crap dragged in from PHP 3 and 4 inluding that crazy mishmash of a function library? Boy, sign me up.

I would like to be the first to say...

[Yuioup]

"welcome to 1967".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simula

Y

Re:PHP

[Ford Prefect]

PHP: The Language For People Who Can't Code Perl

Oh, but everyone (and everything) can code perl - the trick is to hit the keys in a sufficiently random manner.

A$u^UD&KRWTuKUI^R&54$%A%ERYTi:",<%$E^%L<E%@$U%^*E

There. That's either a full-featured web-browser, or a worm which will destroy the entire internet. I don't really dare to run it... ;-)

Crap...

[A beautiful mind]

I've clicked to another tab to browse at some other site and then I've seen suddently:

"Slashdot | Going Dynamic with PHP"

...as the title of the Slashdot tab. It gave me the creeps until I remembered whats the article about. Phew.

Re:PHP

[deep44]

Can anybody else read this comment? My browser keeps crashing..

Any fool can code Perl...

[iBod]

Any fool can code Perl, just like any fool can code PHP/C/Java/VB/Smalltalk/COBOL etc. etc.

Anyone can write code, but very few can write really great code, that reduces the problem to the essential elements and uses the simplest approach to the problem, with the tool (i.e. language) in hand.

You can write shit code in ANY language. You can also write good code in ANY language (within the limitations of the language).

What you're saying is like "Spanish for People who can't speak in German".

It's nonsense and insulting at the same time.

You need to express yourself or solve the problem within the framework of the language you have.

You might choose a different language for a particular task, but if the language is a given, a good poet (or programmer) will make the best of it.

A better language doesn't make one a better programmer (or poet).

Re:PHP

[Unski]

Or actually, the language for people who want a specific tool for a specific job. What is it with this tedious Perl clique on Slashdot? There are, I presume, plenty of other language-based cliques on /. , however the most vocal ones always seem to be the Perl-mongers. They're the ones who seem to pipe-up the most regardless of topic.

And, for some reason, I'm always left with this mental image of a tall, pasty elder geek sitting in that proverbial Mom's Basement, pulling on his long pointy beard whilst his Gentoo box spends it's 28th hour compiling a boot-loader or something, smirking as he sees his, ahem, 'Perl of Wisdom' slide down the Slashdot page like a turd in summer.

I just fucking hate you, why bother posting at all?

Perl: The Language for People Who Can't Be Arsed to Investigate the Right Language For The Task At Hand.
Perl: 'Cos You Never Really Moved On.
Perl: Why Use the Standalone Screwdriver When There Is A More Fiddly One Attached To This 52-Way Swiss Army Knife?

* Retrieves dummy and calms down *

Re:If you're going to be this generic...

[sammy baby]

My issue with databases and all that is that they are not abstract enough. Either one must create a new table when one wishes to implement a new feature, or one must develop some extremely generic database that is hard to search.

Well, you could always create a single-table database. Call the single table "Stuff," put a generic autoincrementing key on it, and give it two more columns: a type identifier and a serialized object that contains all the data.

Of course, you could also stab yourself in the eye. Might be preferable.

Re:PHP

[nbritton]

@P=split//,".URRUU\c8R";@d=split//,"\nrekcah xinU / lreP rehtona tsuJ";sub p{
@p{"r$p","u$p"}=(P,P);pipe"r$p","u$p";++$p;($q *=2)+=$f=!fork;map{$P=$P[$f^ord
($p{$_})&6];$p{$_ }=/ ^$P/ix?$P:close$_}keys%p}p;p;p;p;p;map{$p{$_}=~/^[ P.]/&&
close$_}%p;wait until$?;map{/^r/&&<$_>}%p;$_=$d[$q];sleep rand(2)if/\S/;print

Re:PHP 4 V. 5

[masklinn]

Not enforcing Object Oriented programming is actually a very good thing, one of the few good things in PHP5.

Giving the option to use OOP (with a good object system, which PHP doesn't have) is good, forcing it on the poor user and preventing him to write as much as a line of code outside of a damn class is stupid, and is a god damn failure of both Java and C#.

While OOP is a good idea for some problem, others are better solved using more imperative or functional styles. That's why I much prefer Ruby or Python to Java: while they have great object models, they don't try to beat you with an ugly stick if you don't wrap every damn thing in a useless class that is only here because the language absolutely forbids you from doing otherwise.

Re:PHP

[DavidTC]

There are, I presume, plenty of other language-based cliques on /. , however the most vocal ones always seem to be the Perl-mongers. They're the ones who seem to pipe-up the most regardless of topic.

They are always upset when anyone chooses any other language for any purpose, because, in any touted feature of any language, you can do exactly the same thing almost exactly the same way in Perl, but better. That is not sarcasm, I am not being ironic, it is flatly true. Often you can literally cut-and-paste the code.

Other languages have an easy way to do something, and a correct way to do something, and a stupid way to do something you get from newbies. You can usually figure out what any line talking about in thirty seconds once you grasp the syntax. (Which, admittedly, can take a bit of time, like with COBOL and Lisp, for examples of languages with semi-odd syntaxes that are not in any other way alike.)

Perl has all those ways, and one hundred others. This is not an exaggeration. You can write BASIC in Perl, you can write PHP in Perl, you can write C in Perl, you can write Lisp in Perl, you can write C++ in Perl.

You sit two programmers of a medium skill level and have them write asm, and they will write identical code. You have them write C, and they will write near-identical code. You have them write PHP, and they will be roughly the same. You have them write Perl, and sometimes one of them will come up with at least one line that the other doesn't immediately recognize, because one of them basically writes PHP in Perl, and the other basically writes C++ in Perl.

This isn't limited to Perl. Programmers often write C in C++, or PHP 4 in PHP 5. When languages get new, better ways to do something, you end up with an 'old style' and a 'new style' and people can upgrade the language itself without upgrading the style they write in. Other people work on their codebase and put in 'new' stuff, and the old guys are baffled.

Perl is merely the only language that has ever deliberately done this. Perl is like being able to write in any programming style you want, at any time, using a semi-consistent syntax, along with features that no other language likes, like $_. Perl fanatics are under the mistaken impression this is somehow a feature, as opposed to making it fucking impossible to ever read any Perl code unless it happens to be written in the style you know.