Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

(OT troll) New Section: PHP

by Anonymous Monk
on Mar 03, 2006 at 09:37 UTC ( #534177=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by davorg (Chancellor) on Mar 03, 2006 at 10:14 UTC
    an O'Reilly employee admitted that O'Reilly is trying to control perl by using the viral GPL

    chromatic did no such thing. He said that O'Reilly had donated Perl documentation to the Perl community. Either you didn't read the post, or you don't understand how the GPL works or you are deliberately just spreading FUD.

    I propose we add a new section, entitled "PHP", where we can ask the questions on how to change a piece of perl into PHP and talk about building the future this way

    Can't really see that being popular round here can you? If you really want to start "phpmonks", then the Everything Engine that powers Perlmonks is open source. Feel free to use it to set up your own community.


    "The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club."
    -- Chip Salzenberg

      The code I wrote for this site is not and never will be available to the OP for use on a phpmonks.

      alter ego of demerphq
        Does that mean that pythonmonks can ? ;-)

        Sorry, sorry jkva runs for it

        What about rubymonks? ;-p

      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by Juerd (Abbot) on Mar 03, 2006 at 11:41 UTC

    I won't comment on the O'Reilly stuff because I don't see how it is relevant.

    So we should help people move to writing PHP instead. For this I propose we add a new section, entitled "PHP", where we can ask the questions on how to change a piece of perl into PHP and talk about building the future this way. Maybe this can be the start of a phpmonks community?

    PHP is popular because their community (as far as it exists) doesn't encourage or reward learning as much as the Perl community does. This may sound weird, but there are many programmers (or want-to-be-programmers) out there, that seek help, but are put off when they get pointers to documentation that doesn't directly answer their question, and only their question.

    In fact, PHP is specifically catered for beginning programmers. When I tried to discuss lexical variables, the PHP developers more or less responded that it would too hard, too complex, too surprising, for their users. That says quite a lot about both PHP and its users, I think.

    The Monastery on the other hand, does encourage learning and does reward it. There are many testimonials that state that Perl Monks helped people's Perl capabilities grow. If something like this site would work for PHP, then XP would be the only reason why. Anyone who's actually really smart doesn't write much about PHP without references to other languages, because they are curious about the rest of the world, and will discover that PHP sucks. But there are many people who do write PHP articles. My impression is that the eternal f(l)ame is the primary motivator, and we have that in the form of XP.

    Even though XP could make a similar site work for PHP, I think that that could be construed as XP whoring. Also, every problem with Everything will be explained as a Perl issue, and the entire thing would be re-made in PHP. Probably with internals that are just as crappy (PHP doesn't really support clean and modular code), but with an exterior that's pretty and appealing. PHP would again present itself as something shiny and neat, and it would again be the Perl people who made it possible initially. That wouldn't really make me happy.

    I do not believe that a new site could create a different kind of community for PHP, as it's eventually the programming language (its lack of learning curve, and a builtin function for everything, including calculating the easterdate) that makes people initially try PHP, and keep the many ignorant programmers at that language.

    The major benefit of this site, to me, has been that it greatly increased my Perl knowledge and wisdom. This was possible because Perl supports programming using real programming techniques. With an imperative-only language like PHP, I don't think anyone would really benefit from such a site, except for XP whores.

    Juerd # { site => '', plp_site => '', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Mar 03, 2006 at 13:18 UTC

    By a curious coincidence I came across the troll cap today. How I wish I could add images to posts :-)


      People should avoid answering him/her. Obvious they are either trying to bait people into a nonsensical argument or just spreading FUD. Their comments in the O'reilly post were just as stupid and idiotic.

      The troll hat is an excellent idea and would stop people wasting theire time on stupid posts.
      Hope someone in control of the monestry takes up the idea.

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by lukeyboy1 (Beadle) on Mar 03, 2006 at 11:43 UTC
    While I really do appreciate the strengths of PHP (I use it nearly as much as Perl, since it's part of my job), I think that this post is really just here to spread FUD, and to ultimately attempt to cause a flame war. There's no need for this, IMO!

    Anonymous monk, IMO you should be ashamed of yourself for even considering posting something as ill-considered as this excuse for a post.

    Each language has it's own strengths (PHP and Perl are no different in this regard), but you should do a bit more research (and perhaps more importantly: completely understand what they were saying) before spewing what I consider to be ill-judged, poorly researched, and, ultimately, pretty much incorrect!

    All this is IMO, by the by. But I can't imagine too many of the monks disagreeing with me, really.....
Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by cog (Parson) on Mar 03, 2006 at 11:57 UTC
    we should all move away from this language

    After you! :-)

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by xorl (Deacon) on Mar 03, 2006 at 16:56 UTC

    An interesting idea, but totally idiotic reasoning behind it.

    • 1) Perl is not becoming corporate controlled.
    • 2) Even if it did, I'm not sure that would be bad. At least we'd have Perl 6 out within a year of MegaCorp taking it over.
    • 3) Perl is GPL'ed so it can't become corporate controlled. At the very least you can fork the code.
    • 4) PHP has a very specific purpose, database-driven interactive websites.
    • 5) PHP fails pretty miserably when trying to do anything other than its specific purpose.
    • 6) The PHP Open Source Development Team is not a group to emulate (just look at how they treat the OCIEnvNlsCreate() failed bug, I've been hit by bug too, but since they've decided to label it bogus there isn't any point to me reporting it again especially after how they treated that guy.)
    A PHP section or even a phpmonks community, could be very useful. PHP is my language of choice for web development. However there are a number of times where I need to make it play nicely with Perl. There are also other times where Perl would be a better choice. A section that discusses when (not) to use Perl and how to interact with other languages might be nice section. However perlmonks should remain primarily perl. This site should not become the "How to convert all your perl to php" site.

    Given that we don't see many questions here about converting stuff to or from PHP, I don't think we need a new section. Also since your reasons are completely loony, I'm going to have to -- your post. Congrats this is the first time in a number of months that I've actually found something in Worst Nodes section that belonged there.

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Mar 03, 2006 at 18:37 UTC

    To be read multiple times for extra entertainment value, in various tones of your choosing:

    As you found out, the entire site membership consists of O’Reilly employees and their friends. With such a veritable army under their command, is it any wonder that O’Reilly is an overbearing force in the publishing market? And soon, they will take over Perl. World domination is next. Welcome your new overlords or perish!

    Makeshifts last the longest.

      Overlords is supposed to take an adjective so it gets picked up.

        I, for one, welcome our new publisher overlords.

        print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
        - apotheon
        CopyWrite Chad Perrin

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by duff (Parson) on Mar 03, 2006 at 18:53 UTC

    I hesitate to reply to this obvious troll, but I will anyway. (What are fridays good for if not goofing off :-)

    Firstly, perl6 has not been in development for "8 years". You could say that the idea of a newer, better perl has been kicked around since 1998 and recently there has been some serious development efforts. Perl6 didn't even come to fruition as an idea until 2000 and development didn't start in ernest later. (When exactly depends on what you consider "development")

    Secondly ...

    They (O'Reilly) don't want you to program effectively, instead they want to create a new version that is so complicated even the designers don't understand it, so they can keep selling more books to everybody caught in their mouse-trap.
    That's an interesting theory. How much money does O'Reilly make from perl books compared to all of the other books they sell? And if they're doing this to perl, who's to say that they won't also do the same to PHP, Python, Ruby, etc.? I mean, if they have a good racket going, why would they limit themselves to just perl? Oh, and how exactly is O'Reilly creating a new version of perl?

    And lastly ...

    Maybe this can be the start of a phpmonks community?
    Feel free to go and do just that. No one is stopping you.
Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by radiantmatrix (Parson) on Mar 03, 2006 at 19:39 UTC

    In an answer to my last meditation, an O'Reilly employee admitted that O'Reilly is trying to control perl by using the viral GPL

    You don't get how this works, do you? The GPL is viral, yes -- it's viral in a way that prevents any contributor from controlling the entire product. If O'Reilly contributes copyright-protected material to Perl, they are forced to license that contribution under the GPL. That license means that anyone is allowed to use and modify those contributions. Because they are forced to license in this way, it prevents them from controlling Perl, because they give up most of their control granted by the copyright.

    In short, the GPL forces any contributing entity to give up control. BTW, everyone who has ever contributed to Perl has provided their copyright-protected material.

    A collection of thoughts and links from the minds of geeks
    The Code that can be seen is not the true Code
    I haven't found a problem yet that can't be solved by a well-placed trebuchet
Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by jdporter (Chancellor) on Mar 03, 2006 at 14:43 UTC

      I think we need a new section entitled "New Perlmonks Sections" . . .

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by lukeyboy1 (Beadle) on Mar 03, 2006 at 14:06 UTC
    there's actually a very good scottish word for people that post topics like this. It's "Baw bag" (lit. "Bag of t*sticles" - on this occasion, quite appropriate). It's pretty darned good, and I'm thinking of making an entry in the wikipoedia for it! :) :)
      (though, possibly I'm now wearing the troll cap. Sigh.)

      Heh... I had a Dutch boss who used to call me 'clautsac' (unsure of spelling). Meant the same thing - scrotum. Course, I didn't know it at the time, only found out many years after I left that job...

        My dutch is not that strong anymore (I moved to Canada when I was 8), but the correct spelling is 'klootzak'. There is even a reference on wikipedia that confirms that you are correct in the meaning of the word.

        I'm sure everyone feels a whole lot better now that this is cleared up ;-)

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by Marza (Vicar) on Mar 03, 2006 at 19:36 UTC

    Ok. You have to be wassercrats as many of your posts seem to deal with the "demise" of Perl. diotalevi deserves credit for pointing this out.

    Again you have failed to prove corporate control. You have made false claims as to peoples intentions and their comments to your falsehoods.

    Why stay here if you dislike Perl so much and love PHP all the more? Do you simply like trolling?

        But poking trolls is fun!

        Ok. *sits in a corner and sulks*


      Do you really expect a useful answer?

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by spiritway (Vicar) on Mar 03, 2006 at 19:04 UTC

    I dunno... seems much ado about nothing. If you like the idea of a phpmonks, then I think you should try it out - I would think there would be many people who might join, because PHP is a very popular language. And once you've created phpmonks, you can add a section for Perl users trying to cross over to PHP. That would accomplish you stated goal quite nicely. You might call it something like "PHP for Recovering Perl Programmers"

Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by nothingmuch (Priest) on Mar 06, 2006 at 18:19 UTC

    Seriously though: shut up.

    zz zZ Z Z #!perl
Re: (OT troll) New Section: PHP
by dokkeldepper (Friar) on Mar 09, 2006 at 09:53 UTC

    I admit, I voted this post ++. Uaaaaaargh.

    Although I totally refuse the PHP part, I'd like to stress some valid points of the poor poster.

    To give you some perspective, I work mostly on statistical and geometrical algorithms, so that I have a lot of context switching between OO (application framework), procedural (numerics i.e. multidimensional numerical optimization), functional (inference) programming style. For such a situation perl is by far the most convenient language because I can chose the language constructs that are the most convenient for the task at hand.

    However, there seems to be to much OO pressure in the development of perl6, to much closed shop style. All this "pattern" stuff, and "architecture" murmuring. Hate me, but this is like speaking about the windows, without thinking about the house.

    May be this is part of the language darwinism: those who get the most money have the most time can spend the most time for development in OS stuff like perl.

    On the other hand, what is it useful for to convert perl 5 to yaool (pronounce it, with a long aooooooooo at night!) , that is yet another object oriented language? Moreover, doesn't this darwinian style selection mean that the future is sacrificed for the present?


    Ok, to prevent misunderstanding: I agree with the part of the aimless development cycle perl is in.

    Although I see a tendency that O'Reilly may have too much influence on perl, but this is mainly through the excellent books. Of course excellence means influence.

      Why are you worrying?

      • There is no pressure to use OO in Perl 5. There will be no pressure to use OO in Perl 6.
      • Perl 6 is not getting a makeover in the OO area alone. More, and more powerful, functional constructs will be possible in Perl 6 as well.
      • Perl 5 is not going away.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://534177]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (2)
As of 2022-05-20 01:25 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you prefer to work remotely?

    Results (72 votes). Check out past polls.