Talk:PHP/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Programming language

PHP is not a programming language... it is more a scripting language than anything. Nothing gets compiled in PHP. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's required anywhere that a "programming language" be compiled. Last I knew, no one ever argued that BASIC isn't a programming language and in its original form, that was a fully-interpreted language, never compiled. Even today, many versions are still semi-interpreted.

Really, if you try to decide which languages are scripting langauges and which are some kind of official "programming languages", we'll be splitting those hairs forevermore.

Atlant 18:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Many people make a distinction between scrpiting languages and programming languages, but it's not that simple. Scripting languages are more like a subset of all programming languages. The division isn't always clear, either: Python, for example. Rhobite 21:00, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Programming language doesn't need to be compiled. e.g. you can write a scripting engine that supports C++. What you are referring is compiled language. --minghong 11:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A scripting language of any complexity tends to become usable for more general programming. This happened to perl and later to PHP. When you consider that Wikipedia runs on a reasonably complex application written in PHP, and nearly all the major forum applications and many of the webmail applications are written in PHP, it seems absurd to make the distinction that PHP is a scripting language. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are languages that do blur the lines between what is a programming or scripting language and PHP is certainly heading in that direction, but as long it’s being interpreted, it’s factually incorrect to call it a programming language. The whole basis of PHP development is still and will be toward scripting web pages, with a few other projects aside from that which will most likely lead PHP to become a full programming language. Many think that there is something derogatory about the term "scripting language" that it only refers to simple things, like JAVASCRIPT (which is another scripting language). Well tell that to UNIX admins who have been writing incredibly complex scripts for administration processes for years now! PHP defines itself as a general-purpose scripting language and that is exactly what the first line of the article should say.--Seanor 16:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every program is data; every piece of data influences the behavior of a program. It's useless to think that there can be a useful distinction between "programming languages" and "scripting languages". PHP can be byte-compiled; with PHP-on-parrot apparently maturing, it may soon be able to be JITted and native-compiled as well. But whether a program is interpreted directly by a CPU, or indirectly by a piece of software, is hardly relevant in most cases. (And see the Transmeta Crusoe for another example of blurring the line.)

Hrmmm. A scripted web page _is_ a computer program! Esp. when you consider PHP _programs_ like phpBB that aren't simple scripted web pages but rather .php program files that execute and generate output based on page templates. What the freak are you talking about? "factually incorrect"--that's nonsense. PHP is a programming language. Period. That's used in web scripting. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is it with people thinking there is something derogatory with term “scripting language”? It’s not a slur. Generating output, working with SMARTY is fantastic, it’s great with DBs especially mysql, it can do wonderful things, can you can make complex data structures with it and even more complex web sites if you want…

When you consider phpBB what is executing and generating all that nice bulletin board stuff? Its .php scripts run through the PHP interpreter. So does PHP need an interpreter to work? YES! That’s the PROGRAM which executes PHP scripts. It’s not executable without it. Without a PHP interpreter running in the background here this page would not exist. I firmly believe that PHP will one day be a programming language, a language that can be used to create computer programs, but as of yet this is not the case. Therefore it’s factually incorrect to call it a programming language. It was and still is a scripted language. It’s a language that can be used to make scripts that can be run through an interpreter to do useful things. However some languages do blur the line between if it is scripted or programming language e.g. Perl and Lisp.--Seanor 11:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A scripting language *is* a programming language. I didn't say "scripting language" was derogatory. It's a matter of term precision here. To say PHP isn't a programming language is to defy reason. Programming languages that are interpreted are still programming languages. I sincerely hope you don't possess a CS degree, for if you did, you need to go back to school. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When PHP becomes a language that can be used to make computer programs it will then be a programming language, but for right now it is a language that can be used to make scripts containing very high level institutions that can be run through an interpreter which executes those instructions. The very first line of this article is wrong. Since PHP is defined as scripting language, that is what it has been and is being used for, that is what should formally define what PHP is. Discussions about the groupings of different types of different languages, e.g. mark-up, procedural, assembly and so on are not apart of what PHP is.

This is a definition of what PHP is not what people want it to be. Not even Rasmus Lerdorf defines PHP as a programming language, not even the dev teams who work on PHP formally define it as a programming language, not even every single online dictionary and book on PHP defines it as a programming language, including wikibooks[1]...... This is too ridiculous I can’t continue this. Call PHP whatever you feel like.--Seanor 13:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a programming language. There are two flavors of programming languages- interpereted and compiled. This one happens to be interpereted. Oftentimes you will find the term scripting used in place of the term interpereted, but they mean the same thing. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 15:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"There are two flavors of programming languages- interpereted and compiled."

There's also threaded code, a rather odd but often very-efficient way of splitting the difference between compiled and fully-interpreted.

Atlant 13:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PHP can be compiled to .exe format, so can python. PHP is a programming language, it just happens that no one has ever really made a popular php program. For good reason since their are better languages out their. It is however possible to write a computer program, just not... wise. class scriptLanguage extends programmingLanguage { } --Capi crimm 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Bit silly.. By that standard .NET, Java and a whole host of languages that clearly are programming languages are simply 'scripting languages' for that matter, if the issues is really that simplistic and the question is "can it be compiled to bytecode?" then the answer is yes.. which would cover that.. moreover a scripting language *IS* a programming language. "it just happens that no one has ever really made a popular php program" - complete rubish. Some of the most popular applications on the planet are written in PHP - you're staring at one right this second.. --Streaky 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question that goes unanswered

On behalf of the readers whose level of technical knowledge is waaaaay below what this article presupposes: If I see a URL ending in .pdf, I know what it means and what to expect (I'll need Acrobat, it will tend to load more slowly than other links, etc.). What does it tell me if I see a URL ending in .php? Maybe nothing, if PHP is just a programming language rather than a particular format? If that's the case, it would help us cyberklutzes if there were a sentence saying that. Having encountered such a link in the course of doing research for Wikipedia, I came here hoping for enlightenment, but I'm afraid this article goes over my head. JamesMLane 17:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A page ending in ".php" will be treated (by the web server) as though it contains PHP code along with HTML code. The PHP code embedded into the page will be executed, and anything this code "outputs" will be intermingled with the HTML code that already existed on the web page. By the time it gets to your web browser, the HTML is all that is left; all traces of the PHP code are gone.

To make a concrete example from this, imagine a web page that wants to include the current date and time within it. We have a whole bunch of HTML that is 99% of the web page, and here, in one little table data item, we want the date and time. Using PHP, between the (td) and the (/td), we simply stick a little bit of PHP code that outputs the current date and time. As the web server is sending the web page to you, it eventually encounters that little snipit of PHP code which it then runs. The code puts out the date and time (say, "2005.04.02 14:28") and the web server then cranks out the rest of the HTML web page. At your browser, you simply see "...(td)2005.04.02 14:28(/td)...", just as if that date and time were hard-coded into the HTML.

Does that answer your question? Would you like to edit the article now? :-)

Atlant 19:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you answered my question, thanks. I looked at the article and wasn't sure where or even whether to incorporate the information. I did feel confident in removing a superfluous hyphen, though, and that will have to be my contribution to PHP at this time. JamesMLane 23:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of extra confusion into the mix, technically the extension is irrelevent in context - the only thig that matters is the mime type that is sent to the browser for content negotiation (thus how the browser deals with the data) for example, a php file could send a pdf document, as long as the corrent Content-type header is sent all should go smoothly, as such you can map extensions to handle files in a different way, for example you can send the content type for pdf docs for all files with the .txt extension if you wanted to, and languages such as php can change it 'on the fly' using the header() construct in PHP's case, see MIME and http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ for more information - more on point though, you can make the server parse .html files as if they were php files for example. --Streaky 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whither the hyphen?

JamesMLane 23:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) wrote: I did feel confident in removing a superfluous hyphen, though, and that will have to be my contribution to PHP at this time.

I'm not confident that hyphen change was correct — the words widely-used are being used as a compound modifier. But I've seen it both ways. Anyone know a good grammarian? Deco 01:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hyphens tend to come and go, and their usage varies widely. The usual trajectory is that two words that become closely associated sometimes become hyphenated and, if they remain closely associated long enough, the hyphen will eventually disappear. But I'd expect the speed of this varies a lot depending on which English dialect we're discussing and how formal the writing style is. "Copy edit" --> "copy-edit" --> "copyedit" might be a nice example of this for Wikipedians.

If we get to the point of arguing about hyphens (as, for example, Atheism is now exhausting a lot of energy arguing "m-dashes" versus "n-dashes"), we might as well give up. ;-)

Atlant 11:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The hyphen in such instances is widely used because that's a very common error, about on a par with the misspelling "millenium". As our article on hyphen notes, there's generally no need to hyphenate a compound phrase consisting of an adverb and an adjective because there's no ambiguity; the adverb modifies the adjective. By contrast, in a phrase like "twentieth-century invention", "twentieth" is an adjective that could modify either of the nouns that follow, so the hyphen is proper to indicate that it's intended to modify "century".

I usually correct these superfluous hyphens when I notice them, but I stay out of the holy wars over m-dashes and n-dashes. JamesMLane 18:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Available functions don't depend on build-time configuration settings?

Stevietheman reverted a minor edit of mine that changed a phrase from "available functions depend on configuration options" to "available functions depend on the build-time configuration settings." Most of the functions that I'm aware of that aren't available by default come with installation notes like "In order to use these functions you must compile PHP with xx support by using the --xx[=DIR] configure option." I changed the phraseology to "build-time configuration settings," which are non-trivial to change, to differentiate them from runtime configuration options that can be easily set in php.ini. If I'm misunderstanding the facts please tell me, but I feel that my wording is more clear. —Miles (Talk) 04:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's both actually. Your wording left out the fact that features can be turned on or off from the php config file, post-build. I reverted instead of copyediting... sue me.  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have my lawyers call your lawyers :P. Before I edit that spot again, though, could you show me an example of just one function that can be made available/inavailable based on php.ini settings? I'm not trying to challenge you, I just don't want to make it any wordier than it has to be. Thanks —Miles (Talk) 04:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Dynamic Extensions" section of php.ini is used for enabling non-built-in functions. For example, have "extension=php_oracle.dll" (Windows) or "extension=php_oracle.so" (Unix/Linux) to have Oracle functions available (given that the Oracle client libraries are also installed). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 10:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't heard of those before; I'm not exactly a command-line power user so I haven't really had much experience with compiling extensions as shared libraries. I really do think however that adding extensions is more complex than changing normal options, and that the article should reflect that. How's the new wording? :) —Miles (Talk) 21:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's both and/or one or the other - it's the central premise that makes us open source devs cringe - sometimes they can be enabled at runtime, sometimes by editing php.ini, sometimes at compile-time and sometimes you got not chance, all depending on the environemnt - usually though, on windows it's runtime and php.ini and linux it's compile time, but they are interchangable. --Streaky 02:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Angels dancing on PHP pinheads

I've read in some places that 2,147,483,648 angels can dance on the head of a PHP script, but elsewhere, I've read that it's only 255 angels. But does it matter? Can't we all stop following the script and simply get with the program?

Seriously, there's some discussion going on here that would be far better placed over a couple of pitchers of beer rather than in an alleged encyclopedia because it's the sort of debate that has no empirical answer and won't ever be settled.

Atlant 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magic Quotes Disabled by Default?

From this section...

Magic Quotes are turned off by default in PHP 5. For more information, see the security section in the Magic Quotes chapter of the PHP manual.

Where on php.net does it say that magic quotes are disabled by default in PHP 5? It doesn't say anything about it in the security section that's linked to...

My error, sorry. I was looking at the contents of the php.ini-recommended and confusing it with the php.ini-dist, especially since the former says, "This is the recommended, PHP 5-style version of the php.ini-dist file." That sentence should either be removed, or changed to reflect the fact that magic_quotes_gpc = Off is a recommendation and not a default in PHP5. —Miles →☎ 21:28, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was just looking through the PHP page, and saw this sentence. I stopped by here to start a discussion about it, but I see that there already has been one, with no changes made. Therefore, I'm just going to modify the sentence. --Powerlord 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

mysqli

I noticed that this was not in the libraries list. I think it is a library (not totally sure what a library actually is) and it is documented. Should it be added to the list? Borb 11:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Applications built with PHP

Would anyone agree that it's time to create a new article for this list and take it out of this article for good? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The applications list is missing a lot and needs its own space to grow. In fact, I think this same argument could be made for the "criticisms" section. On that note, I'm been thinking of an article balancing criticisms with some best practices and solutions. Anybody is free to beat me to it ;) Vector4F 02:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

PHP 10th birthday!

Happy birthday, PHP! (June 8th, 2005)

PHP can hold arrays of varying types, but C++ and Java can't?

"Further, unlike many other languages (like C++ and Java), arrays are able to hold objects of varying types, including other arrays." (See PHP#Popularity) Please explain, I am a first year Java programmer and know virtually no C++, but I thought in Java you can make varying types of arrays. Like

String [] str = new String [7];
str[1] = "hi";
str[2] = "5";
str[3] = "get it?";

Or does the writer mean you can change the variable type after it is declared. Like replace "5" with 5 (the integer). Also, the writer says in Java and C++, you can't have an arrays of arrays. I know this it not true. "String [][] myDoubleStrArray = new String [6][8];" is completely legal in java. So is "Array [] arrOfArrs = new Array [4];" I have never tried an array of arrays of arrays, though. -Hyad 05:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• You don't declare variables in PHP, and they are dynamically typed, so you can change their types all you want. Elements of a particular array don't have to be of the same type, and this type can indeed be an array itself. --IByte 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• The article's statement is ludicrous. Object arrays and void* arrays serve exactly the same purpose in Java and C++. The fact that Java and C++ are additionally able to have strongly-typed arrays is a benefit, not a deficit. Deco 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, so much for changing it Deco, now I understand. For anyone who's too lazy to click the link, the sentence I was talking about it gone. The new sentence reads "Arrays are heterogenous, meaning a single array can contain objects of more than one type." -Hyad 04:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing default settings?

With regard to what it says in the Criticisms section:

Some default settings and features are said to be confusing and the cause of frequent errors.

I think this statement adds nothing without examples. I'd suggest either adding examples or removing the sentence altogether. (Being a bit biased as I've used PHP for years, no examples immediately come to mind.) --IByte 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

php in IIS

how to run php pages in IIS server.

It's pretty straightforward, installing PHP for Windows should configure IIS properly. See [2]. Rhobite 04:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep old name in introduction?

The old meaning of the PHP acronym (Personal Home Page) has recently been added twice to the introductory paragraph (I reverted it once). However, that duplicates information in the History section, and I feel that's a better place for it than the intro. Instead of starting a revert war with multiple persons, I'd like to know whether more people think it shouldn't be in the intro.

I agree with you. That name is unuseful history that doesn't make sense in the intro.

Totally, no need for it. --Streaky 02:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Code Example, Part II

This is to reply Quadra's "friendly messages". I'm sorry for reverting without properly explaining my reasons, that's my mistake. But do you think being sarcastic will in itself help "bring me on the right path"?

Actually I wasn't being sarcastic, I was responding in kind to your comment as you didn't indicate that you actually read the manual page and you made your comment based instead on something you didn't agree with. By the way, I meant for the manual to "bring you on the right path" since that's what it's there for, if it was simply my opinion I wouldn't have bothered. Quadra23 Sept 8, 2005.

Anyway, my reason for reverting was not that I didn't read the manual, as you suggest. The reason is that this is an encyclopedia, not some technical page from the PHP documentation. As such, I think people expect a representative overview of the topics being presented. Take a look at all the code samples in the article. I expect you're in some way involved in programming PHP -- is that how your code looks? Are those code samples representative of PHP? No, they're not, those look very much like lower case BASIC to me. PHP features a C-like look and feel, and the code samples in the article don't show that, therefore I don't think they're representative of the language.

I'm just concerned that it could show people that want a overview bad programming habits. How does placing a bracket right after the command improve the ability for a site visitor to understand what the construct would do? I only see the possible disadvantage of teaching bad programming. Quadra23 Sept 8, 2005.

Now, regarding your claims that echo is a construct and adding paranthesis adds unnecessary complexity: I agree! But for a person who wants an overview, I strongly feel that including the paranthesis would give them a more "true" feeling of the language. --Gutza ^{T T+} 07:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'm open to any solution which would be both representative of PHP and "proper" for the technical people -- either use paranthesis in the current code samples and add a note explaining they're not needed, or changing the code samples altogether to make them look more like your average chunk of PHP code out there in the "real world". --Gutza ^{T T+} 07:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Then you probably didn't read my comments, I don't see how I could be more clear than I was above... Please note that I agreed with you, you don't need to reiterate your reasons for your edit, we're already past that. I was talking about how representative the code samples are for the language in the current form, and I also came with a couple of suggestions. Can we move on and start the conversation from that point? --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I did read your comment, I reiterated because it seemed like you were saying the added complexity actually makes the code simplier for someone who wants an overview, but doing so essentially makes the code a little harder to understand exactly what's going on (i.e. it makes it look like the data is being sent to a function). Now moving on, I see what you mean about representative but, frankly, I think the C-style is represented fair enough without the parentheses, and I see no mention on in the Code Sample section that the sample was meant to show similarities with C. If I was attempting to remove the C-style similarities I would have made the while look like so: while( condition): ... endwhile; which is also perfectly good PHP. The other thing is the code isn't consistent with the other examples when the parentheses used. You don't see return() or echo() so we shouldn't see print(). I hope this clearly explains what I meant. Quadra23 Sept 8, 2005.

Overview POV

The "Overview" section still has a lot of POV, in my opinion: see "ease of use", "without having to learn a whole new set of functions and practice", etc. The whole first paragraph is a little too much advocacy, not enough encyclopedic content. The second paragraph insuinating that one of the "most attractive" features of PHP is that it does more than scripting is also POV and extremely off the mark - its scripting capabilities is clearly (to me) its most attractive feature - nobody picks it up because of its command-line interface, after all. I think the real overview is already at the top of the page, and the entire Overview section should probably be compacted and merged into that. Turnstep 17:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. The section reads like advocacy. In short, your suggestion of cutting and merging the section seems very reasonable. As a bonus it would also shorten the article.

I think "ease of use" is the wrong phrase. What I think the text is trying to get at is the accessibility to features and functionality. For an experienced developer, this is just another interface with another set of tradeoffs. For a learner, this is a low barrier to entry. We should not confuse features, flexibility, low-barriers, etc. with "ease of use". The phrase reminds me of all those flames about the Linux desktop - not a good thing! ;)

I also agree with your analysis of the second paragraph. It sounds a little ridiculous. First, many scripting languages bind with a GUI toolkit and command line, so there is no reason to suggest that these examples prove PHP is "more than a scripting programming language." Second, you pointed out these are not major reasons people choose PHP and I concur. Mentioning them is fine, stressing them ("one of the more attractive parts") is misleading.

Vector4F 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Elephant logo?

I haven't visited the article lately, so I have to ask: What's up with the elephant logo? Was it really introduced lately? The php.net website doesn't seem to use it. Either way, first it made me think "Hmm, rips off PostgreSQL" and then I though "this seems suspiciously uncyclopedic". So is it the real logo or what? --Wwwwolf 18:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I just changed it back. Googling for "elephant" on php.net found no relevant hits. The official logo page at php.net does not show any elephants. Googling on "PHP elephant" returns only this WP page and someone on a PG mailing list asking where such a logo exists. Since php.net is presumably the canonical source of all things php, I reverted the logo and removed the "elephant as mascot" line as well. Turnstep 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Popularity and POV

The entire popularity section still seems very POV and un-encylopedic. Derivations of the word "popular" are used four times (including the title). The paragraph also tries to equate "install base" with "usage base", which is disingeneous at best. PHP may be "popular", but we'll need to do better than saying that it is installed on a lot of boxes. I think the entire section should be removed: with perhaps a few things salvaged and put into other sections. Turnstep 15:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

99 BoB Examples

Do we really need two of those? I think one is quite sufficient. Shinobu 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. — mark ✎ 17:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The two examples show the two very different methods of php programming - the first shows code interspersed with html; the second shows html with embedded code. I think it is important to show these main two ways of doing things in php, to exemplify that php can be used in a way that would suit a c/java developer or alternatively can be used in a way that would suit an html developer wishing to add dynamic content to his or her code. --jackohare 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as showing embedded vs non-embedded code, I think it would be much more effective to have 2 smaller, simpler examples. All the extra code about the beer song adds a lot of white noise. Would anyone object to replacing the two beer examples with two smaller ones? Would it be worthwhile to still keep the second beer example? --Flash 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty Hypertext Processor?

"Some fans of this language also use the label "Pretty Hypertext Preprocessor".

Does anyone have references for this statement? Stevietheman 19:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been using PHP for just over five years now, and I've never heard it referred to as "Pretty Hypertext Preprocessor," nor have I heard or seen the term "Professional Hypertext Preprocessor." In my opinion, the sentences describing these terms should be removed from this entry for three reasons: 1) the discussion of the terms has not been validated in any source, 2) the discussion regarding them does not add value to the entry, and 3) the discussion of these terms seems less than professional -- with an almost joking tone. These terms sound as if they are colloquialisms created by a single person or used within a single organization; they are not used in the developer community at large. Ramsey 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this content should be wiped from the article. I've used PHP for over four years myself, and I've never heard of these references. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 10:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"PHP, short for PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor also doesn't really make sense since the first P in PHP is supposedly PHP itself."

The PHP acronym was originally from Personal Home Pages (as the article says). PHP was then changed to standing for PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor which is a Recursive_acronym. Yes, in a first-letter recursive acronym the letter can be any letter to get it to be consistent, and P was chosen because of the PHP acronym history. Evildictaitor 21:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Recursive_acronym. Ronabop 04:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

External links overload

Following Wikipedia:External links, does the article need this many external links? Apart from ELEVEN "resources", I counted FIVE online forums, FOUR users groups, SIX advocacy sites, and FIVE Open Directory Project folders! Are PHP's OOP abilities so complex that we recommend ELEVEN links for more information?! Are these all reliable sources anyway? -- Perfecto  00:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that the External links section is longer than need be. Perhaps some of the support entires could be removed? -- Scohoust 12:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction acronym dumping?

I thought there was way too many things in the introduction so I removed some stuff and put it into separate section. Now, is LAMP, WIMP, and WAMP really necessary up there? -- WB 06:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this belongs in the introduction. Someone with no knowledge about php would likely be intimidated by all the acronyms, and if they actually wanted to know what WAMP was, they would look up WAMP, not php. I don't know that WIMP and WAMP are even very common acronyms. It seems like this content should be moved, if not removed. --jackohare 18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This article (as it is now), is very confusing to anyone that has no idea what php is, and wants to know what it is. It needs a thorough trim. Also, I can understand you want an example script like the 99 bottles of beer one, but why 2? Just pick one (I'd personally pick the second one, as it shows better how you can embed it into regular html). The comment block (or part of) of the first script might be able to fit in there too. --Jonne 17:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the two 99 bottles of beer examples above. I have to disagree with you on this, for the reasons I put forth above. --jackohare 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Link cruft building up

The link list following "For more on PHP's OOP abilities, see:" is building up with external links that probably don't belong in the article. This list should point to a couple leading articles or tutorials, and that's it. Anyone have a problem if I do a little snipping? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the cruft, most of which were links to PHP frameworks. These should be added to DMOZ (Open Directory Project). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed a sentence about commenting

*Although PHP allows both # and // for "same line" comments, it is generally
preferred to use the   C++-style // and not the Bourne Shell and Perl style #. 
[3]

Could anyone confirm this? I've seen both commenting styles and never read anything about one being 'preferred' over the other. The link in this sentence (the comments on PHP.net) don't say anything about it either. Husky 16:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The // comments are used exclusively in the PHP documentation in code examples; I've seen it used in others' code far more often than #. I don't think "it is preferred" to use C++-style comments for a specific reason, but I think most authors do prefer to use that style. —Miles←☎ 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the page being linked to doesn't actually say any such thing about preferences for writing general PHP code... I think the confusion lies in the fact that the standard for *writing* the online (php.net) documents states a clear preference for the online manual, see: [[4]] where it states:

For comments in example, use <literal>//</literal> for single line comments (preferable above the lines of code the comment comments on), and use <literal>/* .. */</literal> for multiline comments:

So, seeing // all over the manual is an editorial convention. In practical use, if a PHP author has a large amount of C++ in their background, they'll use //, if they have a large amount of shell and Perl in their background, they're more likely to use #. I lke typing less charcters, so I often use #. :-) Ronabop 06:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Allright, if it's just the preferred style for the manual i'll leave it out. Husky 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

# comment discouraged?

"# comment -- its use is discouraged" - I've never seen this being discouraged, just "not the way most people do things". Am I missing something? ElliottHird 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Oops, sorry, didn't see above. ElliottHird 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, never discouraged.. more "rarely used" - see above --Streaky 02:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Its use it not discouraged by any means, changed the wording to be more correct. Blueapples 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Experiences of Using PHP in Large Websites" like is out of date

The "Experiences of Using PHP in Large Websites" advocacy link is out of date. A lot of the points raised in the article are no longer valid under current versions of PHP. (4.3-5.1) The article was written soon after superglobals were introduced and he talks about backwards compatibilty with PHP3 and PHP2. The article makes many references to problems that are only in PHP 2 and 3. PHP3 is old and very few people use it. PHP2 is virturally extinct. I know hat it is the only negative article about PHP under advocacy, but it brings up points that aren't big concerns today. At least, there should be a notice saying that some of the points in the article are for old versions of PHP.

PHP 3 is virtually extinct, PHP 2 is extinct tbh. --Streaky 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Open source language

What is an "open-source language"? Don't almost all languages have a public spec? In which way is PHP more open than other languages?

php is considered more open source for this reason:

The entire project is open source. You cant say the same about ColdFusion or ASP..

In PHP, you could take something like the str_replace() function, (and if you know c) you could go in and modify the function to do exactly what you need, and recompile it for yourself. now str_replace() will behave different than everyone elses. That would cause alot of 'porting' problems, but you get the idea.

As for open-source language, hrm.. i assume it's for the above reason and the fact that a plethora of php source is avail at no cost.

--da404LewZer 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The language engine itself is Open Source, as in you can download the source and compile it yourself, modify it, redistribute it, etc. That's what an Open Source Language is - technically it has nothing to do with the nature of available applications, but yes, a very large proportion (relatively) op apps are open source. See http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt --Streaky 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

damn i cant orient myself in that page

damn what kind of a discussion is this, look at some of the modern forums they are totaly different, i cant orient myself here ,thats a total mess of text, i cant see what is a new post and what is reply and so on.this has to be changed
--previous unsigned comment by User:81.243.24.36

Perhaps someone with more experience can organize and archive this talk page. I agree that the discussion page on Wikipedia articles is not always easy to follow. It helps when everyone follows the same format. For example:

• creating a new section for a new topic, as you did
• replies all following the same format, like indenting with a ":"
• everyone should sign their comments, with a --~~~~
• know the basics of editing

--Unixguy 11:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)