Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:33259
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.185 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=aKLdm7U9xIXC4J43KwoyAelYqt6Bo4+aWqtgaXvWJmw87UrZTsZ8RDHdh+RDhsnCHsUtpoGkJOGl8ItocHO6oPvykE1FwZl9HJkwvK8KvZiXkjUrsMcTqezF6GExwoNrRAPWE6xufyIk84nrPOdGmhPWg/iUHRU+EPaBAAP4BI8=
Message-ID: <52dbac0f0711181337ta031cc6ga0fbe3e0b07f019@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:37:33 -0300
To: "Sam Barrow" <sam@sambarrow.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1195272540.12249.18.camel@sams-room>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_14136_2932319.1195421853950"
References: <8D.46.01128.768AD374@pb1.pair.com>
	 <1195246391.21084.15.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
	 <1195250285.4012.6.camel@johannes.nop>
	 <1195251014.21084.20.camel@sbarrow-desktop>
	 <473E349E.3050704@swplumb.com> <473E35A3.3010307@zend.com>
	 <1195259911.10547.9.camel@sams-room> <473E4B39.6040305@zend.com>
	 <473E63A5.7090700@swplumb.com> <1195272540.12249.18.camel@sams-room>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Question about superglobals
From: malterisio777@gmail.com ("Martin Alterisio")

------=_Part_14136_2932319.1195421853950
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

2007/11/17, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com>:
>
> But why not have maximum flexibility? A language should provide as many
> tools to the user as possible, a tool doesn't hurt. If you don't want to
> do it, don't, who cares? But an extra tool never hurts in any situation,
> real life or a programming language. Any language and any features of a
> language can be abused horribly by someone who doesn't know what they're
> doing.
>

I disagree. A new tool is only more trouble if there's already a more
elegant way to solve the problem. If you ever worked on a big project which
uses perl for some parts of the processing, you'll know what I mean. There
can't be any actual teamwork if every damn perl programmer writes the same
code in a different way. And don't even try imposing some coding convention,
they will just argue for days which and why is the more elegant way to code
anything, even a damn if branch!


2007/11/17, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com>:
>
> Flexibility does not hurt anyone except the people who abuse it. If
> they're going to make mistakes like this, they're going to make mistakes
> regardless. We don't have to hold back new features and flexibiltiy in
> order to prevent a couple of people from messing up. If everyone went by
> this logic then PHP would not even have functions, because people might
> use them wrongly.
>

I highly recommend reading Murphy's Law. There is a whole section on
software development that will enlighten you.


2007/11/17, Sam Barrow <sam@sambarrow.com>:
>
> You say that superglobals were not designed to be user defined, think
> about it, the concept of a superglobal is present in C and C++, two of
> the maturest and strictest languages around.


I have a specially crafted bat that's only for teaching coders that they
should not use globals in C/C++ (specially C++). I ordered another one for
PHP coders, but had to send it back to be adjusted (compatibility problems
with PHP5).

------=_Part_14136_2932319.1195421853950--