Try to remember that we're not talking about languages at this point, after all, but those things that go in to using the language in some practical application. It doesn't matter if you think a language is horrible or fantastic.
Try installing PHP from scratch and come back here with your bullshit.
The first time I did that was 15 or so years ago. I remember it being completely painless, even though we had to build from source. Today, it's even easier. Other tools need to step-up their game to compete.
Are you claiming that PHP is difficult to setup? If so, I have to question your defense of RoR.
RoR is notorious for its unnecessarily complicated installation. Even the simple process you outline for setting up RoR is far more complicated that other competing tools. This is reality.
Moving on, deployment in RoR is still just as painful as the installation. There are countless third-party tools to help mitigate the issue, naturally, though none that simplify the process as well as PHP. Years ago, when RoR was the hot new technology, I predicted that these two problems would prevent wide-spread adoption. I was right, and RoR is now just another also-ran. (You could claim that there were other factors, like several high-profile failures and a toxic community, but I suspect it's simply these far more mundane issues.)
If you really want to see the end of PHP, work to produce something that's at least as good as PHP in terms of setup and deployment. Focusing on the language alone is foolish. If you want to see RoR return from the dustbin of history, work with the community to solve those problems. Pretending they don't exist won't help.
So, what part of "scripting language" don't you understand...?
Nothing, or everything, depending on who you ask. There's no real definition. Today, anything with dynamic typing gets called a "scripting language". Years ago, it just meant any language used in some host environment (a word processor, web browser, game, etc.) In a few years, I'm sure it'll be something different. Some people already use it as a pejorative for languages they don't personally like.
, Python has always been famously committed to a very high level of compatibility between minor versions,
A google search will confirm a host of issues with compatibility between 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. That last one is interesting, as it was hailed as a version that was capable of running "most" python 2 code.
You'll also find popular projects that require a specific version of python as newer versions are incompatible. It's not uncommon to find multiple versions of python on a single system to address this. I can pass along specific examples if you'd like.
It's more than 20 years old at this point. You'd think that we'd see some stability.
Despite the occasional legitimate complaint about the language, there isn't really anything better. Before someone posts "anything is better" I'd like to point out two factors that explain its ubiquity: it's laughably easy to setup (unlike, for example, Ruby) and it makes deployment pitifully simple. No one does those two essential things better than PHP.
If you expect a language to compete in the same space, it not only needs to be at least as good as PHP where setup and deployment are concerned, but the language itself needs to be *easier* to use for both beginners and advanced users. You can bet against any competitor on this basis alone. We've seem a lot of flash-in-the-pan competitors over the last 15 years, after all. You'd think that if PHP was as horrible and unusable as the rabble here claim that someone would be able to do better!
Would you rather I complain about the compatibility problems between minor versions? It's abysmal performance? Or do I need to expound on the original point and poke fun at how anonymous functions are crippled because of the absurd whitespace rules, point out how they often hurt readability, explain how they lead to bugs that are literally invisible, or about how they make refactoring code difficult?
The whitespace rules are reason enough to avoid learning it, just as it's serious compatibility issues are reason enough to avoid using it in any professional context. Why bother with further explanation? It's far more economical to move on to any one of countless alternatives far more suitable for any given application.
Python's beauty comes in the elegant and readable code.
A lot of really stupid people think all python code is easy to read because of it's absurd white space rules. I'm here to tell you that most of the python code I've encountered is worse than obfuscated perl. Even the best python code I've encountered is painful to read -- all due to its absurd whitespace rules. The worst is when the indentation level drops by more than one level.
Also there are three programming styles to solve any problem, OOP, procedural and functional.
That's not a point I'd make. Here, the oft-maligned javascript has python beat hands-down. As an added bit of fun, the absurd white space rules are the one and only reason that anonymous functions in python are completely crippled!
Of course, this could all change next week when they release another version of python that's incompatible with previous versions. Call me in another 20 years when there's something at least approaching stability.
Why single one group out at all? Why not use "he or she"
Because it's awkward. Apparently, not many people know how to use 'they' as third-person singular pronoun.
(Inexplicably, they don't seem to have any trouble using 'their' that way. e.g. "One of the editors left their brain at home." I weep for the future...)
Don't be stupid. Some web apps sucks, many others don't. Just like applications written for every platform over the entire history of the electronic digital computer.
They don't tend to suck more or less than apps for Windows, Android, iOS, QNX, MacOS, Linux,OS/2, or any other platform -- developed in any language.
Want to see an absurd number of really crummy apps? Look no further than Google Play or the Apple App Store. Do we then confirm that Android and iOS apps suck, and that everyone should be frightened by them? Of course not. (To that one misguided mod: Blind ideology isn't informative.)
Nonsense. A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction. An hypothesis doesn't grow up to become a theory, rather, theories generate hypotheses.
It's not a theory until it's made enough predictions
What makes a theory a scientific theory is only that it makes testable predictions. You want to talk about validity, though as a falsificationist you're stuck.
the two main objectives of a typed language: (1) this is how the name is spelled
First, there are vanishingly few untyped language. Second, your first "objective" has absolutely nothing to do with type systems. In the few untyped languages of which I'm familiar, all will fail if an identifier hasn't been properly declared. Further, the same is true for many languages with dynamic typing, and false for some with static typing!
In short, your "error" has absolutely nothing to do with static vs dynamic typing.
I think everyone spotted your error, it just has absolutely nothing to do with static vs dynamic typing. They just made the mistake of assuming you understood those terms and ignored it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a desktop system without a fan. Does that make it "not a desktop"?
Obviously, that means your desktop is a tablet.
Try to remember that we're not talking about languages at this point, after all, but those things that go in to using the language in some practical application. It doesn't matter if you think a language is horrible or fantastic.
Try installing PHP from scratch and come back here with your bullshit.
The first time I did that was 15 or so years ago. I remember it being completely painless, even though we had to build from source. Today, it's even easier. Other tools need to step-up their game to compete.
Are you claiming that PHP is difficult to setup? If so, I have to question your defense of RoR.
RoR is notorious for its unnecessarily complicated installation. Even the simple process you outline for setting up RoR is far more complicated that other competing tools. This is reality.
Moving on, deployment in RoR is still just as painful as the installation. There are countless third-party tools to help mitigate the issue, naturally, though none that simplify the process as well as PHP. Years ago, when RoR was the hot new technology, I predicted that these two problems would prevent wide-spread adoption. I was right, and RoR is now just another also-ran. (You could claim that there were other factors, like several high-profile failures and a toxic community, but I suspect it's simply these far more mundane issues.)
If you really want to see the end of PHP, work to produce something that's at least as good as PHP in terms of setup and deployment. Focusing on the language alone is foolish. If you want to see RoR return from the dustbin of history, work with the community to solve those problems. Pretending they don't exist won't help.
So, what part of "scripting language" don't you understand...?
Nothing, or everything, depending on who you ask. There's no real definition. Today, anything with dynamic typing gets called a "scripting language". Years ago, it just meant any language used in some host environment (a word processor, web browser, game, etc.) In a few years, I'm sure it'll be something different. Some people already use it as a pejorative for languages they don't personally like.
, Python has always been famously committed to a very high level of compatibility between minor versions,
A google search will confirm a host of issues with compatibility between 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. That last one is interesting, as it was hailed as a version that was capable of running "most" python 2 code.
You'll also find popular projects that require a specific version of python as newer versions are incompatible. It's not uncommon to find multiple versions of python on a single system to address this. I can pass along specific examples if you'd like.
It's more than 20 years old at this point. You'd think that we'd see some stability.
I'd also genuinely like to learn more about how anonymous functions are crippled by whitespace.
I'll let Guido answer that.
Of course, he sees nothing wrong with the absurd constraints imposed on lambdas by his ridiculous white space rules:
In my mind, the inability of lambda to contain a print statement or a while-loop etc. is only a minor flaw;
That's really it in a nutshell.
Despite the occasional legitimate complaint about the language, there isn't really anything better. Before someone posts "anything is better" I'd like to point out two factors that explain its ubiquity: it's laughably easy to setup (unlike, for example, Ruby) and it makes deployment pitifully simple. No one does those two essential things better than PHP.
If you expect a language to compete in the same space, it not only needs to be at least as good as PHP where setup and deployment are concerned, but the language itself needs to be *easier* to use for both beginners and advanced users. You can bet against any competitor on this basis alone. We've seem a lot of flash-in-the-pan competitors over the last 15 years, after all. You'd think that if PHP was as horrible and unusable as the rabble here claim that someone would be able to do better!
Still beating that dead horse?
It's both laughably outdated and wildly inaccurate (in the very few places that have any substantive content). The bulk of the post is empty rhetoric.
Reposting it may net you a few points from the bottom 10% of unthinking zealots, but to the rest of us, it just makes you look foolish.
Would you rather I complain about the compatibility problems between minor versions? It's abysmal performance? Or do I need to expound on the original point and poke fun at how anonymous functions are crippled because of the absurd whitespace rules, point out how they often hurt readability, explain how they lead to bugs that are literally invisible, or about how they make refactoring code difficult?
The whitespace rules are reason enough to avoid learning it, just as it's serious compatibility issues are reason enough to avoid using it in any professional context. Why bother with further explanation? It's far more economical to move on to any one of countless alternatives far more suitable for any given application.
Python's beauty comes in the elegant and readable code.
A lot of really stupid people think all python code is easy to read because of it's absurd white space rules. I'm here to tell you that most of the python code I've encountered is worse than obfuscated perl. Even the best python code I've encountered is painful to read -- all due to its absurd whitespace rules. The worst is when the indentation level drops by more than one level.
Also there are three programming styles to solve any problem, OOP, procedural and functional.
That's not a point I'd make. Here, the oft-maligned javascript has python beat hands-down. As an added bit of fun, the absurd white space rules are the one and only reason that anonymous functions in python are completely crippled!
Of course, this could all change next week when they release another version of python that's incompatible with previous versions. Call me in another 20 years when there's something at least approaching stability.
About 3 quarts.
In the case of Python, it's entirely justified.
There are countless other reasons, obviously, but that alone is sufficient.
I will narrow it. It's not computer science until we start calling maths 'number science'.
Stop that
Probably because it's not a bug.
Well, that and they couldn't care less about the opinion of a tiny minority of perpetually unhappy people who don't even use the browser.
No, he didn't. It would appear that you're the one who is confused.
Why single one group out at all? Why not use "he or she"
Because it's awkward. Apparently, not many people know how to use 'they' as third-person singular pronoun.
(Inexplicably, they don't seem to have any trouble using 'their' that way. e.g. "One of the editors left their brain at home." I weep for the future...)
they're afraid of standards-based web apps
Obviously. Why do you think they developed Dart?
Universally and without exception?
Don't be stupid. Some web apps sucks, many others don't. Just like applications written for every platform over the entire history of the electronic digital computer.
They don't tend to suck more or less than apps for Windows, Android, iOS, QNX, MacOS, Linux,OS/2, or any other platform -- developed in any language.
Want to see an absurd number of really crummy apps? Look no further than Google Play or the Apple App Store. Do we then confirm that Android and iOS apps suck, and that everyone should be frightened by them? Of course not. (To that one misguided mod: Blind ideology isn't informative.)
I'd put Space Invaders before either. It had far more impact on both the industry and game design.
None of those languages are untyped.
If it'll help you, Forth is an example of an untyped language.
Verificationism has been dead for a while now.
Nonsense. A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction. An hypothesis doesn't grow up to become a theory, rather, theories generate hypotheses.
It's not a theory until it's made enough predictions
What makes a theory a scientific theory is only that it makes testable predictions. You want to talk about validity, though as a falsificationist you're stuck.
the two main objectives of a typed language: (1) this is how the name is spelled
First, there are vanishingly few untyped language. Second, your first "objective" has absolutely nothing to do with type systems. In the few untyped languages of which I'm familiar, all will fail if an identifier hasn't been properly declared. Further, the same is true for many languages with dynamic typing, and false for some with static typing!
In short, your "error" has absolutely nothing to do with static vs dynamic typing.
I think everyone spotted your error, it just has absolutely nothing to do with static vs dynamic typing. They just made the mistake of assuming you understood those terms and ignored it.
Well, that's one way to defend folk wisdom...
It sure is easier than doing actual research.