User talk:Moggie2002
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] PHP Discussion
Hey, I saw you reinstated the ternary operator "criticism" at the PHP page, asking to discuss on the talk page rather than delete. There is a huge dispute about unsourced criticisms and the criticisms section in general already the the talk page of PHP. Assuming you had read this, I deleted the paragraph you added as it did not provide any way of verifying it was really a real-world criticism (e.g. authors with authority on the subject, per WP:SPS), nor any source to verify whether whatever was stated in the paragraph was true. As in this state it read as a statement that there was a flaw in the language itself rather than a criticism (those are not the same!), I deleted it; so please either source the paragraph you added, or delete it. I'm posting this here as I'm essentially rehashing what has been said on the talk page already -- you're welcome to join in it there. -mrbartjens (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it's fair to say that the original post was a valid criticism, and to avoid doubt, illustrated the point for anyone unfamiliar with the details. However I'm happy to have the cut down version, but do consider it valid to criticise a language feature that will lead to coding bugs not only by those familiar with the concept from other languages (which are many since 1966 when it first appeared), but also by new developers. A flaw is indeed not a criticism, however something that is flawed may justifiably garner public criticism at some point, and did so today.
- On the issue of sourcing I agree in general, however as this is a factual issue and not merely someones view that, for example, PHP should have namespaces, an explanation should suffice. WP is after all a dictionary, and should not be deferring on every point to an external source to justify its inclusion. Furthermore, an illustration was included so that anyone could test if they so wished. IIRC I did point out the error some years ago in one of the php.net resources, and so it may be lingering somewhere, but citing this would be pointless.
- With regards to authority and while not wishing to blow ones own proverbial trumpet, having been in the software industry for over 20 years, I feel that I can claim some authority of the subject matter. I actually churned out my first language and a compiler for it when I was 16, and developed various other languages and compilers since then. I've also been actively involved in the PHP arena over the last 7 or 8 years and been interviewed in relation to certain work in this area, so am not quite a PHP newbie :) If you feel strongly enough that a factual flaw does not merit criticism then by all means remove it again, but when put against some of the other entries in a section that is indeed bloated with some nonsense and baggage, it is probably one of the better points that does stand up and merit a mention.
- Moggie2002 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am not contesting your authority, not at all; it is the authority of the sources that go along with all criticisms that I am concerned about. My point about sources is that the term "criticism" concerns a judgement, rather than a statement of fact; I'd say "PHP does not support namespaces" is not criticism, but "PHP sucks because it does not support namespaces" is (though it's poor criticism ;). The problem as I see it is that currently most paragraphs in the list are of the first kind, and the second kind requires sources, as it'd be POV to say "PHP sucks because..." in the article itself. I hope this clears things up. -mrbartjens (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand your position, and frankly as far as namespaces goes, which was just a random example, I'd rather say "PHP does not support namespaces, get over it!" :) Some of the points in the section are just projections of peoples wishes for what they want the language to be; certain things may indeed be good ideas and their omission could be shortcomings, but even if backed up by cited articles from "experts" this does not mean that they merit inclusion in a criticisms list. If anything they should be in a wishlist, but there's no place for one of those in a dictionary. So like others, I think that the section should be pruned. I also edited the "criticism" of tempnam() to make that more palatable, but stopped short of removing it entirely although I may still do that if no one else does. Sure tempnam() changed behaviour, and there might be the odd script for which this caused a problem, but I changed the wording of "now tempnam()..." to point out that this change was 8 years ago and that it fixed a design flaw. I don't think that a fix and improvement nearly a decade ago can merit being in a criticism section, and yet there it is.
-
-
-
- The ternary operator is more of a big deal in my view. When cascaded and used appropriately it gives neater and easier to read code than the use of alternatives (if/else or switch), as well as more maintainable code with the probability for fewer bugs from having only one variable to assign to as opposed to one for each case, and where the programmer might mistype one of the assignments or forget to edit an assignment if changing the name of the variable to assign. These are important considerations. Experienced programmers who are aware of the operator and the benefits to producing reliable code would use it in such cases and expect it to work in a certain way, yet ironically the expression would not evaluate correctly and the operator would be a cause of bugs. In another case, someone translating an example from a similar language into PHP where the operator was cascaded would also have a bug to find. With the purpose of a dictionary being to inform and educate, making a reader and potential user aware of a notable difference in behaviour from the norm is providing a positive benefit. However the operator is how it is, and even if crippled, maybe it indeed should not be in a criticism section but one for notable differences from similar languages. A reader quickly glancing through is far more likely to pick it out to read from such a section than a list of criticisms that they probably don't care to read.
- Moggie2002 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Building PHP into a Featured Article
I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to improve the article to featured status, and I believe it is ready for that. But, I already have one nomination right now, so I can't nominate another article. If you think you can donate some time to the article's nomination, then I would be more than willing to help out. Please let me know. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ?:
Hey, I was clicking links all over the place and somehow ended up at ?:, the good 'ol ternary operator. When I saw that PHP didn't support it correctly, it made me curious enough to start up apache and take a look. Much to my surprise, the article was correct (?!), so I went looking a little bit to find out more. Eventually, on the php man page for switch, I found out that you have to enclose it with more parenthesis. I updated the article (though writing's not my strong point), used a nifty tool to find that it was you who added that in the first place, and thought I'd let you know! You seem to be pretty active on php stuff here, so I figured that knowing that you can actually use ternary if's in that way might be useful to you (though, of course with an abundance of parenthesis!). Cheers! Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: help! 05:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- From reading more of your talk page, it seems that you might be completely aware of this. However, I thought it a good idea to let people know that there is a way to make it work, rather than just mentioning that it doesn't work as expected. :)! Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: help! 05:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, and parentheses can of course be used to alter the associativity just as they always can; for example, 2 + 3 * 4 that evaluates to 14 in most languages (although not with all pocket calculators) will evaluate to 20 if written as (2 + 3) * 4. This is basic stuff and shouldn't need to be stated as developers should be familiar with the use of ( ) to alter associativity. Unfortunately though, no developer familiar with ?: from other languages would expect PHP to behave differently, and this is the problem. The fact that it can be corrected is largely irrelevant as the developer will unexpectedly write faulty code initially and the damage is done. Where to put the parentheses when trying to fix the problem is also not obvious, and a developer will probably have a few attempts to get it right if they don't give up and fall back on a switch or if/then. This problem only applies when ?: is used more than once in an expression, and used singly there's no issue of course.
- Moggie2002 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] About your previous comment on my talk page
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Btx40, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --72.252.194.115 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know this, but thanks anyway :) Personally I prefer to click the four tildes link to sign but was distracted by a baby and questions of what to put on our DIY pizza this evening and the edit was done and dusted before the signing took place. Oh well.
- Moggie2002 (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
