"and there is a strange need to repeat the first item of the list at the end..."
My instinct is that this behaviour removes the need to handle a special-case whilst parsing: generally considered to be a good thing (TM) (well, at least by those who favour comprehension over storage space/efficiency such as... XML 'users').
Just as the LISP grammar requires a closing parenthesis for 'the first element', IIRC.
P.S. Why doesn't slash support the use of <q> tags?
You've convinced me: I'll check it out. I rate CVS highly and, if what you say about svn is correct (I have no reason to believe otherwise), it can get even better!
What about when everyone has their Mac mini and want to carry around a sizable amount of their music, as easily as possible, and share it (permanently or temporarily) wherever they go?
I have an iPod and wouldn't want anything less than 40Gb, but I'm not the target market. Late teens will lap this up.
Although I agree with your general point (why shouldn't we help out here at slashdot!?), I must admit that CVS totally passed me by until I actually had to use the thing. It was a sharp, fast learning curve: if you learn to use it on an existing production project, I believe it will 'click' much faster than any background theoretical reading you might choose instead.
This argument could also apply to experience. Everyone I work (directly) with knows CVS. I don't know of anyone who knows subversion. The submitter describes "a decent sized project". If this also involves a 'decent sized' company, chances are, CVS-use will be far more productive.
Having said that, I have yet to delve into subversion and it may well be a far superior product, for all I know. Maybe maintain a smaller project using subversion at the same time; your bosses will (probably) respect the fact that you were able to evaluate an alternative product whilst going with their recommendation at first.
I haven't used command-line PHP much, but agree with most of your points. They were the sort of points I was trying to make, albeit expressed in a slightly more straightforward way;-) I get sick and tired of assumptions that anything is "easy" and that, if something/is/, it must not be worth using. PHP is merely different, and, as a programming language is better suited to some tasks than any other, and less suited to a whole lot of tasks than some languages. It's always been that way, get used to it. (that's not aimed at you, Dr.!)
What's with this perception that PHP is 'easy' somehow? Can somebody explain in what way it is 'easy'? The syntax (as has already been pointed out) is very similar to C, the concept of functional (or OO) programming still needs to be learnt, a web programmer still needs to understand http, sessions, cookies, etc. when using it. Are you talking about ease of installation? Why argue about/that/? Are you talking about the fact that it's weakly-typed and variables do not need to be declared before use? Plenty of other languages follow suit. Is there a problem with the fact that you can't do everything in 18 different ways and, thus, end up with a complex (i.e. not 'easy') mess that no-one else can maintain? Or is it just that PHP provides a very simple way of developing a huge range of medium-scale applications with built-in features to manage http, cookies, sessions, etc.? Sure, people can do damage if they don't understand the language, but that's nothing new. I suppose some huge percentage of PHP 'programmers' lack knowledge of some key concepts of the language, but I'll warrant that percentage is not much greater than the corresponding ratio of c, java, perl programmers. Seriously, have any of you who claim PHP is 'easy' every done any serious programming with it? And can you just explain what you mean? For the record, the way PHP handles certain array-based structures and, especially, the way it handles pointers/references is, IMHO, far more complicated than equivalents in Java/C.
Notice how, in your example, this is subject-verb, subject-verb, subject-verb. In the previous example (x++ vs ++x), the author was talking about object-verb vs verb-object (note 'object' not meaning object in the OO sense!). Here, the argument about verb-object being more 'natural' is correct (at least, to English speakers). Of course, this all assumes that you view the translation as "increment x" as opposed to "x increments itself" which, I think, most of us do...
...this bug is not that serious, if you use IE correctly
What? You mean there's a correct way to use IE?!? Why didn't you tell us earlier!?
Oh, wait. You've just misunderstood the meaning of the word 'correct'...;-)
I see this as an OS problem rather than a browser problem. OK, IE is full of security holes, has to be patched on a regular basis, flouts several standards, and is forced upon the user. However, the real crime here is an operating system that allows 'applications' to be installed (either willingly or unwillingly) and prevents (almost?) them from being uninstalled. This is the most blatant security hole I can imagine and yet it exists on a huge amount of machines throughout the world. Why can't you uninstall the thing? : the registry. I don't know if M$ will ever be able to backtrack on such a stupid invention but, until they do, I really do not feel in control of my own computer (at least, when I HAVE to run the thing which, unfortunately, I often do).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree with the two positives. Please explain the negative: in what way is PHP 'dirty'?
If you actually think about this post, it's making some very important points, very cleverly. Shame it was posted AC.
"and there is a strange need to repeat the first item of the list at the end..."
... XML 'users').
My instinct is that this behaviour removes the need to handle a special-case whilst parsing: generally considered to be a good thing (TM) (well, at least by those who favour comprehension over storage space/efficiency such as
Just as the LISP grammar requires a closing parenthesis for 'the first element', IIRC.
P.S. Why doesn't slash support the use of <q> tags?
You've convinced me: I'll check it out. I rate CVS highly and, if what you say about svn is correct (I have no reason to believe otherwise), it can get even better!
:-)
Thanks
What about when everyone has their Mac mini and want to carry around a sizable amount of their music, as easily as possible, and share it (permanently or temporarily) wherever they go?
I have an iPod and wouldn't want anything less than 40Gb, but I'm not the target market. Late teens will lap this up.
Although I agree with your general point (why shouldn't we help out here at slashdot!?), I must admit that CVS totally passed me by until I actually had to use the thing. It was a sharp, fast learning curve: if you learn to use it on an existing production project, I believe it will 'click' much faster than any background theoretical reading you might choose instead.
This argument could also apply to experience. Everyone I work (directly) with knows CVS. I don't know of anyone who knows subversion. The submitter describes "a decent sized project". If this also involves a 'decent sized' company, chances are, CVS-use will be far more productive.
Having said that, I have yet to delve into subversion and it may well be a far superior product, for all I know. Maybe maintain a smaller project using subversion at the same time; your bosses will (probably) respect the fact that you were able to evaluate an alternative product whilst going with their recommendation at first.
(my emphasis)
Seriously, are their email clients that display images in the subject line?!
I haven't used command-line PHP much, but agree with most of your points. They were the sort of points I was trying to make, albeit expressed in a slightly more straightforward way ;-) I get sick and tired of assumptions that anything is "easy" and that, if something /is/, it must not be worth using. PHP is merely different, and, as a programming language is better suited to some tasks than any other, and less suited to a whole lot of tasks than some languages.
It's always been that way, get used to it. (that's not aimed at you, Dr.!)
What's with this perception that PHP is 'easy' somehow? Can somebody explain in what way it is 'easy'? The syntax (as has already been pointed out) is very similar to C, the concept of functional (or OO) programming still needs to be learnt, a web programmer still needs to understand http, sessions, cookies, etc. when using it. /that/?
Are you talking about ease of installation? Why argue about
Are you talking about the fact that it's weakly-typed and variables do not need to be declared before use? Plenty of other languages follow suit.
Is there a problem with the fact that you can't do everything in 18 different ways and, thus, end up with a complex (i.e. not 'easy') mess that no-one else can maintain?
Or is it just that PHP provides a very simple way of developing a huge range of medium-scale applications with built-in features to manage http, cookies, sessions, etc.? Sure, people can do damage if they don't understand the language, but that's nothing new. I suppose some huge percentage of PHP 'programmers' lack knowledge of some key concepts of the language, but I'll warrant that percentage is not much greater than the corresponding ratio of c, java, perl programmers.
Seriously, have any of you who claim PHP is 'easy' every done any serious programming with it? And can you just explain what you mean?
For the record, the way PHP handles certain array-based structures and, especially, the way it handles pointers/references is, IMHO, far more complicated than equivalents in Java/C.
"Finding a system call which is only used by one competitor..."
I'm interested: how?
"Make sure to document your code within the file submitted. You may also want to add a couple of explanatory lines should you so wish."
With a limit of 500 lines and 80 columns? Yeah, whatever.
"Here is a set of video clips [io2technology.com] demonstrating the device in action"
;-)
Irony, thy most apt example is this quote.
Notice how, in your example, this is subject-verb, subject-verb, subject-verb. In the previous example (x++ vs ++x), the author was talking about object-verb vs verb-object (note 'object' not meaning object in the OO sense!). Here, the argument about verb-object being more 'natural' is correct (at least, to English speakers). Of course, this all assumes that you view the translation as "increment x" as opposed to "x increments itself" which, I think, most of us do ...
...this bug is not that serious, if you use IE correctly What? You mean there's a correct way to use IE?!? Why didn't you tell us earlier!? Oh, wait. You've just misunderstood the meaning of the word 'correct'... ;-)
I see this as an OS problem rather than a browser problem. OK, IE is full of security holes, has to be patched on a regular basis, flouts several standards, and is forced upon the user. However, the real crime here is an operating system that allows 'applications' to be installed (either willingly or unwillingly) and prevents (almost?) them from being uninstalled. This is the most blatant security hole I can imagine and yet it exists on a huge amount of machines throughout the world. Why can't you uninstall the thing? : the registry. I don't know if M$ will ever be able to backtrack on such a stupid invention but, until they do, I really do not feel in control of my own computer (at least, when I HAVE to run the thing which, unfortunately, I often do).