Re: PHP on .NET DLR

Hello There,
As A CMS author I want to say someting about yoru statements.

On Saturday 11 August 2007 23:41:40 K T Ligesh wrote:

>
>  To be frank, Web programming with css, table, div etc is a terrible thing.
> It is a completely structureless madhouse. As a developer, I prefer
> creating the entire gui by calling functions rather than by printing
> strings. The latter is what makes web development so difficult. Anyway,
> whether silverlight will succeed or not is irrelevant; it can't hurt anyone
> to have PHP on .NET nevertheless.

If you had problem with html you have to find yourself in Desktop business.

Universe of html and htpp was chaos. No state, no structure. Just barelly 
accepted W3C standarts.

Once upon time I spend so many hours to generate standarsed html code blocks 
with oo php code.

Always and always there was someting else does not fit the my code (of course 
I had very low OO knowladge at that time).

Then I realize, there is no simple way or final solution for generating HTML 
pages. It have to be free.

Genrating web pages something like designing in corel draw, you can't 
standardize it without significant design loss.

>  OK, silverlight fails miserably. So what? PHP on .NET will still empower
> millions of PHP developers to explore new avenues, and come into contact
> with the new programming ideas that .NET library has. It can only be good.

If so, there was lots of PHP project depends on windows and we will see tons 
of request here for please can we run that php windows thing in linux.

> > A more arrogant statement has never been made.
> >
> > The problem is thinking that great devs are all that matters. Actually
> > devs that can understand how to relate to the average user let alone
> > average dev are those who have the ability to make great positive
> > contributions. Great devs have no issue with complexity, whereas the
> > average person is overwhelmed by it. Great devs simply don't know how to
> > relate. Case in point, look at RDF vs. RSS. The former was designed by
> > great devs, the latter by average devs.  Guess which one became
> > significant?  The one that the average devs could understand.
> >
> > Frankly I view one of my strengths being that I'm *not* a great dev. If I
> > was, I simply couldn't relate to the needs of the rest of the world.
>
>  RSS is not a language. The idea of programmer is to write extraordinarily
> complex programs whose very purpose is to hide the complexity from the end
> user. My day job involves building graphical interfaces--even though I
> personally do not use them--to hide the complexity of the system from the
> end user.
>
> > > Software is not
> > > writing 100 lines of code and feeling clever about it.
> > > Software is about building and maintaining extraordinarily
> > > large projects,
> >
> > Some software is about large projects, but a lot more software is about
> > small projects and more importantly, components. All open-source software
> > to speak of is either comprised of many components or is such a
> > component.
>
>  Just previously you complained how difficult it is to stitch together
> drupal, wordpress etc. Why? Because there is no single person who can
> handle that kind of complexity. Complexity is the key. And complexity
> exists so that it can hide itself from the end user. That's programming.
> You make your programming incredibly complex so that your user doesn't have
> experience it.
>
>  Drupal, wordpress etc has decided to keep it simple. What's the end
> result? Complexity has been passed on to the end user. This is one of the
> absurdities of Open Source. Programmers are saying: We want simplicity, so
> we will throw all the complexity at the end user.
>

Complexity is because of  somebody elses incompetence. For example I can't 
code in c to genrate some apache module to support my CMS system. 
So ?

I have to take PHP overhead.

Or.

Once upon time My CMS system uses PHP based templates.

Then Customers argued, they can't understood php, easily messed up.
I convert it Plain text.
Then Customers argued, dream weaver can't understood my syntax and using ftp 
was too hard for them.
Now we had web based sql supported template system, which 10x times complex 
then orginal aproach. (of course it was so cool, click in an icon an editing 
templates. So now they demand someting like dreamweaver on web)

Also

If you thing MS still give full support PHP as own languages on IIS after 
capturing %70 of web server market share, i'm sorry you are fool.

MS wants every peny on PC world. First they bang other offices, then Web 
Browsers, then IM's, then SQL servers, Then Mail servers, then Borland (or 
other developer tools). 

Once upon time there was huge support for Novell Services on NT. Now Novell 
was nothing.

Their current target was Adobe especially Flash (because of success of flash 
based media streaming, stil they don't understand because of code headcache 
even windows users chooses flash based sites). And new weapon was that silver 
thingy. Of course they choose Ruby because it was very HOT for Marketing. 
There was tons of Ruby yada yada articles everery where. And there was noting 
new in PHP community.

I did not see any messages local bbs for ruby development or python 
development. They are good on papers and when some ordinary guy try to 
develop someting. IT was not good (or easy) enough as php.

We had tons of matured products. 

My point of view PHP needs better things for browser side. Php needs focusing 
new features 

Regards

Sancar

PS: We lose desktop war because of there was no Linus Torvards for desktop. 
For linux desktop there where to many choices even for developers. And we do 
not have that much developer capacity to divide and still compete Microsoft.