Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58633
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kris.craig@gmail.com designates 10.180.92.229 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.92.229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGL7se8THD3_XZPabSe0H1xBTF16ypu9CxjrFMvCD9TU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F54C488.6050209@lsces.co.uk>
	<CA+Ky_uPMrT_U3kvdJ7D6HzaSzdSp80Bb+kFex=NhWFk9F7Y97Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSyaG3tJCS2MT5f0HFa13Vw1zkBWLPRNMcNXUM5-1b-amw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJzDObciKmLEQ8VkH5na1TA__hRfhLApBbAVjrx4RC3OVnwzeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGL7se8THD3_XZPabSe0H1xBTF16ypu9CxjrFMvCD9TU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:03:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzYRBFcsmmZmEd3sucYe7UpdMEOsSh1F+f8b_yTXXBBMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: Adam Jon Richardson <adamjonr@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c094ef9cf9904ba87c407
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] '<?=' with PHP5.3.10
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d043c094ef9cf9904ba87c407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Certainly.  I don't believe this is about "inclusion" any more than
creating a function called "ech" as an alias for "echo" would be.  The <?
tag, as you all know, creates problems when working with XML.  Furthermore,
I've never understood the "it's easier to read" argument since I've found
it to be exactly the opposite.  The <? as opposed to <?php, at least for
me, makes it more difficult to "at a glance" see where the PHP code begins
(i.e. it's smaller and more ambiguous).  Also, since many hosts disable it
by default, getting apps/frameworks that use them working can be an added
pain.

On the other hand, considering how verbose many of our function names are,
I've never understood why the extra 3 characters (or 2 now that it's <?=)
is such a burden that we have to deal with all the above annoyances
instead.  Like I said, other than the fraction of a second it takes to type
"php", I really don't see any value in this.

Let's try this from a financial angle.  After all, "time is money," right?
So let's assume that, on average, it takes you one half of one second to
type the string "php".  Let's also assume that the average salary for a PHP
developer (source: simplyhired.com) in the United States is $56,000/yr.
Rounding-up, that comes out to $27/hr.  So, how much is that one half of
one second burden costing this unfortunate, superbly average PHP
developer?  27 / (60 ^ 2) / 2 == $0.00375.  In other words, roughly 1/3 of
one cent.


So yeah, I guess I stand corrected.  The short_open_tag isn't worthless.
It's worth a third of a penny.  My bad.  ;P

--Kris

P.S. Seriously, if you like short_open_tags, it's really not a big deal for
me.  I just don't see any value in them, myself.


On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:

> I understand the problem with <? and XML, it was just <?= that seemed
> safe enough to me. Glad it's standard in 5.4.
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Adam Jon Richardson <adamjonr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I HATE short_open_tab.  It has no value--  *except* that,
> >> unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some
> frameworks
> >> TTBOMK.
> >
> >
> > I personally like it and find value in its inclusion :)
> >
> > Adam
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330
> punkave.com
> window.punkave.com
>

--f46d043c094ef9cf9904ba87c407--