I've never seen them listed anywhere else, all I ever see is people whining about how bad PHP is.
Then you've never looked, and never gotten more than a toe into the pool to run into them firsthand.
This implies that it IS a good language for simpler projects, which is exactly what I said before.
No, it doesn't. It implies that if you've only scratched the surface of the language, you don't have the experience with it necessary to judge its quality.
These are extremely important features to many. What good is a language if you can't use it on most inexpensive web hosts? It's useless.
Irrelevant to the quality of the language. It's a question of design and philosophical flaws, not popularity, no matter how many times you try to use that excuse.
If PHP were really so bad, someone would have come up with a better alternative by now.
There are plenty of alternatives. Python, Ruby, TCL, Perl, etc. They're all better, even Perl, but less popular.
What's a better alternative? Java is verbose and unwieldy for a small, simple website, and not supported by cheap web hosts. Python maybe, but again it's frequently not supported by cheap web hosts, and it doesn't have a C-like syntax at all. And I don't think there's anything else that's so easy to embed into static HTML.
I didn't say it was inaccessible. I said it wasn't a good language.
Every time I see someone complain about PHP, it just looks like a bunch of bitching and moaning, with zero constructive advice or suggestions for something better, and your post is no exception.
Because they've been listed elsewhere, endless times already.
Inconsistent naming of builtin functions: isset() vs is_numeric() vs empty()
Poor array implementation, going so far as to blindly re-type indices
The kluge "===" operator as a workaround to bad type-coercion logic
In fact, everything about the type-coercion logic
Large integers? Good luck with that.
Unicode support after only 20 years! (maybe)
That's just a few of the reasons. The only things PHP have going for it are accessibility to novice and/or weak developers, and wide availability. If you'd ever used it for anything more complex than a web forum, you'd have experienced first hand "where all the hate comes from."
Just because it's "the only game in town" doesn't imply quality (insert IBM/Microsoft/AOL comparison here).
Do you consider all images in email (that are loaded from a remote server, as opposed to being embedded) to be "web bugs"?
Pretty much, because they all leak information to the sender. If said embedding includes any sort of metadata (hash or identifier of the recipient), then absolutely.
By that definition more than half of the newsletters I willingly subscribe to, have "web bugs".
And? That's why just about every mail/webmail client released in the past decade defaults to not showing them.
t seems to me from my limited work with PHP to everything I've read about it, that it's a great language if you're just building a fairly small and simple website , but totally sucks if you try to scale it up to anything really serious and high-performance
As someone who works with PHP day-in, day-out... every day... every week... until the end of time (*sob*)...
No. It's pretty much a sucky language all along the gamut of use cases.
So why does anyone bother? If you're doing heavy-duty stuff, pick something better suited.
For a long time, you'd have been hard pressed to find something "better suited." Unless you wanted to use CGI or mod-perl instead of PHP, but that'd just be trading one misery for another (said as a long-time lover of perl)
As a Linux user, I have to say, you're seriously overestimating the market there.
How much of the gamer market would ditch Windows in the blink of an eye if they could play the same games on Linux
Even if every member of the intersection of "Gamer" and "Linux user" switched, devs would have to be shirt-soaking drooling stupid to "ditch Windows" for that tiny slice of the pie.
That doesn't correspond to a change in representation, massive or otherwise.
Unless one adopts the flawed premise that one party, or the other, "represents" them, which is just more of the "sports franchise" mentality that's let them get away with not representing anyone for so long.
What shifts in representation? 1994 was, admittedly, before my time -- too worried about passing HS physics to be following politics. I certainly didn't notice any drastic paradigm shift in 2010.
I think this is over the top -- all that a web bug does, is tell the sender whether you opened their message -- but, whether this opinion is valid or not, some people out there feel that way, and using web bugs in your email might piss them off.
This one, for starters. If the user is sensible and has their client set not to show remote images automatically (most clients don't, by default, anymore), it doesn't do that, and so only increases your spamminess for little return.
And if they DO function, web bugs also:
Show you WHEN the message was viewed.
Show you FROM WHERE a message was viewed (ip address).
Reveal details about the receiver's system (in the form of the User Agent), possibly more (I'm not sure just how much data smartphones puke all over internet on a simple web access, these days)
Confirm to the spammer (and yes, I consider it a safe assumption that anyone using web bugs is a spammer, based on the obvious disregard for the recipients' privacy) that an email address is "live"
Sure, but the fundamentals are still in tact and is inherently fixable with proper participation
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
Both you an your sibling post make the same assumption, in spite of decades of evidence and work showing that its *not* simply a matter of participation, as the entrenched in power naturally want to stay there, and to that end, endlessly tweak and corrupt the system to weaken the effect of "proper participation." Overt gaming like "gerrymandering" is just the most overt example, but everything from campaign finance all the way down to the way elections are awarded (FPTP) *all* work against this "within the system" cleanup that the self-righteous "get out and vote" crowd insists is possible.
I guess the proper analogy depends on where you're from, but just shooting a guess from what I've seen on the net every time the World Cup rolls around...
They're not "government leadership." They're "football (soccer) teams."
It's not showing hacks, it's showing DDoS. And what you're looking at is actually US attacks on China -- it's not obvious from the map, and the animation is misleading. View the "Table" view to see that there are no "known" attacks from CN to US.
When Mr Cameron starts sticking his dick into US affairs the way POTUS shoves his into every pie on the damn planet, you might have a point, but regardless of where you are, someone in your government is either taunting or sucking off the head of USGOV.
Well, ok, but how is that different from any other category? As a dad, I have to confess I'm getting a little tired of the Phil Dunphy-like portrayal of goofy, ineffective dads.
I don't think it is very different. IMO, it's a matter of given credit where it's due, and it's not due here.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you may be in for an unhappy life.
There's a difference between being able to laugh at oneself, and finding amusement in the the same tired, lazy old tropes.
So you don't think advertisers are inherently malicious, and then you spend two paragraphs explaining why the sites, rather than the ad networks themselves, aren't bad? Did you completely miss the point, or are you one of the aforementioned and you felt it necessary to make sure you got the bird you were entitled to?
No, that was my point. If I don't want to put my User/pass into it (if I did, I wouldn't be using this thing anyway), I sure as hell don't want to plug a device into it.
Oh, c'mon, when Lorre has to explain the jokes in the vanity cards, with graphs, when the significance of t-shirts and props are lost on most non-geeks and never explained in-story, the show is clearly designed for (or at least giving a firm nod to) geeks
Yeah, hoping that said geeks will be so enamored of that little bit of mainstream acknowledgment that they'll completely miss the fact that it's just one long stream of the same old stereotypical crap we've been hearing from the mundanes since the 80s (and probably before, but my logfile doesn't go back that far).
And this is why I figuratively (and literally) flip off any ass hat who comes in bitching about adblockers whenever they come up.
Malware, black-hats, etc.. are actively hostile to us, our privacy, and our systems' security, and we take steps to mitigate the threat they pose.
Advertisers have proven, time and again, that they belong in the same category, and do so overtly (they don't even try to pretend otherwise). IMNSHO, to not mitigate them borders on negligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Elected officials actually voting according to the interests of the citizenry might be a good start.
As it is now, the party-line parroting voters represent their party, not vice-versa.
I've never seen them listed anywhere else, all I ever see is people whining about how bad PHP is.
Then you've never looked, and never gotten more than a toe into the pool to run into them firsthand.
This implies that it IS a good language for simpler projects, which is exactly what I said before.
No, it doesn't. It implies that if you've only scratched the surface of the language, you don't have the experience with it necessary to judge its quality.
These are extremely important features to many. What good is a language if you can't use it on most inexpensive web hosts? It's useless.
Irrelevant to the quality of the language. It's a question of design and philosophical flaws, not popularity, no matter how many times you try to use that excuse.
If PHP were really so bad, someone would have come up with a better alternative by now.
There are plenty of alternatives. Python, Ruby, TCL, Perl, etc. They're all better, even Perl, but less popular.
What's a better alternative? Java is verbose and unwieldy for a small, simple website, and not supported by cheap web hosts. Python maybe, but again it's frequently not supported by cheap web hosts, and it doesn't have a C-like syntax at all. And I don't think there's anything else that's so easy to embed into static HTML.
I didn't say it was inaccessible. I said it wasn't a good language.
Every time I see someone complain about PHP, it just looks like a bunch of bitching and moaning, with zero constructive advice or suggestions for something better, and your post is no exception.
Because they've been listed elsewhere, endless times already.
That's just a few of the reasons. The only things PHP have going for it are accessibility to novice and/or weak developers, and wide availability. If you'd ever used it for anything more complex than a web forum, you'd have experienced first hand "where all the hate comes from."
Just because it's "the only game in town" doesn't imply quality (insert IBM/Microsoft/AOL comparison here).
Do you consider all images in email (that are loaded from a remote server, as opposed to being embedded) to be "web bugs"?
Pretty much, because they all leak information to the sender. If said embedding includes any sort of metadata (hash or identifier of the recipient), then absolutely.
By that definition more than half of the newsletters I willingly subscribe to, have "web bugs".
And? That's why just about every mail/webmail client released in the past decade defaults to not showing them.
t seems to me from my limited work with PHP to everything I've read about it, that it's a great language if you're just building a fairly small and simple website , but totally sucks if you try to scale it up to anything really serious and high-performance
As someone who works with PHP day-in, day-out... every day... every week... until the end of time (*sob*)...
No. It's pretty much a sucky language all along the gamut of use cases.
So why does anyone bother? If you're doing heavy-duty stuff, pick something better suited.
For a long time, you'd have been hard pressed to find something "better suited." Unless you wanted to use CGI or mod-perl instead of PHP, but that'd just be trading one misery for another (said as a long-time lover of perl)
Look at all the Linux users...
As a Linux user, I have to say, you're seriously overestimating the market there.
How much of the gamer market would ditch Windows in the blink of an eye if they could play the same games on Linux
Even if every member of the intersection of "Gamer" and "Linux user" switched, devs would have to be shirt-soaking drooling stupid to "ditch Windows" for that tiny slice of the pie.
That doesn't correspond to a change in representation, massive or otherwise.
Unless one adopts the flawed premise that one party, or the other, "represents" them, which is just more of the "sports franchise" mentality that's let them get away with not representing anyone for so long.
What shifts in representation? 1994 was, admittedly, before my time -- too worried about passing HS physics to be following politics. I certainly didn't notice any drastic paradigm shift in 2010.
I think this is over the top -- all that a web bug does, is tell the sender whether you opened their message -- but, whether this opinion is valid or not, some people out there feel that way, and using web bugs in your email might piss them off.
This one, for starters. If the user is sensible and has their client set not to show remote images automatically (most clients don't, by default, anymore), it doesn't do that, and so only increases your spamminess for little return.
And if they DO function, web bugs also:
Sure, but the fundamentals are still in tact and is inherently fixable with proper participation
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
Both you an your sibling post make the same assumption, in spite of decades of evidence and work showing that its *not* simply a matter of participation, as the entrenched in power naturally want to stay there, and to that end, endlessly tweak and corrupt the system to weaken the effect of "proper participation." Overt gaming like "gerrymandering" is just the most overt example, but everything from campaign finance all the way down to the way elections are awarded (FPTP) *all* work against this "within the system" cleanup that the self-righteous "get out and vote" crowd insists is possible.
It's a delusion.
And every single citizen in the US (except DC) has that representation.
I didn't think anyone beyond an 8th grade civics class actually still believed that.
What's next, a suggestion to fix the economy by using cloning tech to make teeth, and let the tooth fairy pull us out of it?
Why? Does the milage-based tax somehow imply the tax on the fuel itself would go down?
Don't bet on it. The only thing the government is less likely let go of once they have it in their hands, than power, is money.
Remember that Spanish-American war (1898) telephone tax? They held onto that for over 100 years.
I guess the proper analogy depends on where you're from, but just shooting a guess from what I've seen on the net every time the World Cup rolls around...
They're not "government leadership." They're "football (soccer) teams."
Ah, brain fart. I conflated VID and PID for some reason, so in my head it turned into everyone using exactly the same identifier.
I blame piss-weak coffee. Pay no attention to the putz behind the keyboard.
Seen it suggested else where that we should all just start using 0xF055 as VID
Wouldn't that just make the conflict problem worse instead of better?
It's not showing hacks, it's showing DDoS. And what you're looking at is actually US attacks on China -- it's not obvious from the map, and the animation is misleading. View the "Table" view to see that there are no "known" attacks from CN to US.
When Mr Cameron starts sticking his dick into US affairs the way POTUS shoves his into every pie on the damn planet, you might have a point, but regardless of where you are, someone in your government is either taunting or sucking off the head of USGOV.
In the private sector that which does not live on its own is terminated
Unless the "private sector" in question is the financial sector.
Well, ok, but how is that different from any other category? As a dad, I have to confess I'm getting a little tired of the Phil Dunphy-like portrayal of goofy, ineffective dads.
I don't think it is very different. IMO, it's a matter of given credit where it's due, and it's not due here.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you may be in for an unhappy life.
There's a difference between being able to laugh at oneself, and finding amusement in the the same tired, lazy old tropes.
So you don't think advertisers are inherently malicious, and then you spend two paragraphs explaining why the sites, rather than the ad networks themselves, aren't bad? Did you completely miss the point, or are you one of the aforementioned and you felt it necessary to make sure you got the bird you were entitled to?
No, that was my point. If I don't want to put my User/pass into it (if I did, I wouldn't be using this thing anyway), I sure as hell don't want to plug a device into it.
Oh, c'mon, when Lorre has to explain the jokes in the vanity cards, with graphs, when the significance of t-shirts and props are lost on most non-geeks and never explained in-story, the show is clearly designed for (or at least giving a firm nod to) geeks
Yeah, hoping that said geeks will be so enamored of that little bit of mainstream acknowledgment that they'll completely miss the fact that it's just one long stream of the same old stereotypical crap we've been hearing from the mundanes since the 80s (and probably before, but my logfile doesn't go back that far).
What's the anime site?
Back then, it was called Prodigy.
And this is why I figuratively (and literally) flip off any ass hat who comes in bitching about adblockers whenever they come up.
Malware, black-hats, etc.. are actively hostile to us, our privacy, and our systems' security, and we take steps to mitigate the threat they pose.
Advertisers have proven, time and again, that they belong in the same category, and do so overtly (they don't even try to pretend otherwise). IMNSHO, to not mitigate them borders on negligence.