Re: Re: Perl vs. PHP

> ... and they did a great job designing the language.

Gahh!!! /me pulls on hair screaming.

Puuuuhhhhleeeze. My favorite "design" in php is their well thought out naming conventions for standard functions such as always abreviating string as str, oh... that is except when it's abreviated as strn or good ol' fashioned string, and of course the underscore, underscore, who's got the underscore game that you have to play with every method.

If the million monkeys jumping up and down on typewriters came out with a programming language, it would be closest to PHP.

/me goes back to working on his submission for PEAR.

()-()
 \"/
  `

Comment on Re: Re: Perl vs. PHP

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Perl vs. PHP by ChemBoy (Priest) on May 20, 2002 at 21:32 UTC
Not to claim that I know anything about PHP (I don't), but I have dim memories of C (and I just took a look at your links), and I will indulge in one smart-ass nit-pick: if you're confusing `strcmp` and `strncmp`, you may be in for a nasty surprise... that 'n' isn't part "string", it's an integer argument to the function telling it how many characters are significant for purposes of this comparison (that is, `strncmp("bar","baz",2)` indicates no difference). If God had meant us to fly, he would never have given us the railroads. --Michael Flanders	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perl vs. PHP by ignatz (Vicar) on May 20, 2002 at 21:42 UTC
Ahhh, Nobel Chem Lad, you have foiled my argument well. You are indeed correct as to PHP's dusty lineage. The fact that it would be very easy for them to simply overload strcmp for the third parameter to make a clean, consistant and simpler naming scheme unfortunately in no way adds to the humor of my erroneous attempt at mirth. ()-() \"/ `	[reply]