Re: php + postgresql

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Bill Wordsworth
<bill(dot)wordsworth(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> years. It is newbies like him and fan-boys of Ruby/Python/Perl who
> give PHP a bad name. But I fail to understand the little animosity
> within some PostgreSQL users to PHP- is it the LAMP stack?

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I too don't get the animosity. it's not like you can't write bad code
> in perl, java, ruby or python.
> The real issue is the quality of the programmer.

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, admin <mick(at)mjhall(dot)org> wrote:
> Re the possible heightened level of animosity to PHP in PG circles, if it
> exists, could it have anything to do with PHP's close association with
> MySql? The animosity, by the way, seems to go both ways, I think I saw
> something about Rasmus Lerdorf bagging PostgreSQL on Slashdot(?) recently.

Yes let's stop bluffing and come out with the *real* reason: PHP/Zend
better support MySQL and both have scratched each others back via the
famous LAMP stack. But instead of thinking of better ways for
cooperation, this has caused certain jealousy in some circles,
something like "But I am so much better and so I should have enjoyed
that fame. This is not fair!". And *that* is the real reason why any
question on PHP on this list never goes without a shot at PHP.

PHP is faster than Python, has a smaller memory foot-print than
Python, has better SOAP features than Python, and is better suited for
the web than Python. Python is better suited for the
cli/mac/desktop/phone.

And nobody made Engineers the boss of us. We also can't compare
Database v Language, that MySQL = PHP where PostgreSQL = Language of
Your Choice. We can like PHP *and* PostgreSQL and stand up for both.
Cheers, Bill

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> wrote:
> Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 25. July 2008, Christophe wrote:
>>
> ...
>>
>> My 2 cents: The prime reason for the popularity of PHP is probably the
>> very gentle learning curve. You can start with a static HTML page, and
>> introduce a few PHP snippets to show dynamic content. For us self-taught
>> people, that means that you get instant results with minimal work.
>
> Seems you never used a decent template engine, such as TAL
> http://www.owlfish.com/software/simpleTAL/tal-guide.html
>
> Which really is "code by example" instead of intermixing language
> constructs with HTML which is incredibly hard to maintain.
>
>> If any language want to compete with PHP in popularity, I believe that it
>> must be just as easy to mingle with HTML. $DEITY, I would love to be able to
>> include Perl code in a HTML page inside a pair of <?pl and ?> tags.
>
> Most if not all other languages which are used for the web do have
> those ways, which does not mean its recommended to do so.
>
>> Now, I don't write PHP scripts like that anymore. I like to have every
>> single character served as HTML to be generated by a function. And I
>
> Which is for sure very performant ;)
>
>> realize that Perl would do that even better than PHP. But as I have become
>> quite proficient with PHP, I tend to keep using that. It surely does the
>> job.
>
> And hope that you arent bitten by nasty bugs in the language
> implementation or your security configuration of it :-)
>
> Ok, enough PHP bashing. Sun is shining here and so I invite everybody
> to enjoy the weekend :-)
>
> T.
>