Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Six identifiable bullet points (Score 1) 114

by narcc (#47579205) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

, as you can tell from his meticulous list of instances when == is not transitive.

Which highlights his laughable ignorance. He clearly doesn't understand dynamic languages. If you do the same comparisons in other dynamic languages, or others with the relevant type casts, you'll get the exact same results.

Then again, I'm not trying to defend a long-debunked meme. I appreciate the effort you put in to your "rebuttal", but it's laughably incompetent. A bit like the "fractal" article itself.

Comment: Re:Six identifiable bullet points (Score 1) 114

by narcc (#47579189) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

They don't exist. I've asked the "what's wrong with it" question countless times. I've never received an actual answer. I think your six points are about spot on, that's pretty much all the article has to offer.

I disagree with the first point, for obvious reasons. As well as point 5, which is not a language issue. Point 6 would need some clarification as it's completely unsupported. Point 2 doesn't make sense to me. How many languages throw an exception on a parse error? What if the error is in the handler itself? Further, he seems to hate the fact that PHP doesn't have MORE fatal errors. I'm convinced that he'd complain, as he did in other cases, if a parse error *wasn't* fatal. It's a very odd complaint.

I'd give the author points 3, and 4. Of course, even if I grant him all six, it hardly makes PHP a "fractal" of bad design.

Comment: Re:Engineer? (Score 1) 114

by narcc (#47579145) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

But there is!

In many places, it's illegal to engage in the practice of unlicensed engineering.

We could stand a good crack-down. I'm sick of seeing all the one-skill-wonders running around calling themselves "engineers" to feed their fragile egos. It does a serious disservices to REAL engineers, like the parent.

Comment: Re:its why devs cringe. (Score 1) 114

by narcc (#47579101) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

- it utilisies the very thing that we do in other languages where it isn't necessary to make our code clear.

Except it imposes a burden on the developer, which, in sane languages, can be handled with a single click on the the pretty-print button.

This argument drives me crazy. It completely ignores *every other factor* that affects code legibility. I've even seen Python zealots argue that all Python code readable because indentation is enforced. What a joke! I've seen plenty of illegible Python code.

And yes, when the indentation level changes by more than one level, it's significantly more difficult to read than other languages. Even if you disagree, you've got to admit that it's far easier to tell when a block begins and ends when you have two indicators instead of one.

If that's not to your liking, consider that, in Python, it's possible to have two programs that appear visually identical but are, in fact, different. You want to talk about readability while advocating a language in which you can easily create errors that you actually can't see? It's the height of absurdity.

Comment: Re:its why devs cringe. (Score 1) 114

by narcc (#47579079) Attached to: PHP Finally Getting a Formal Specification

I'm pretty sure that python has its own list of issues. Maybe not to the same extent as PHP, but they exist.

Python's problems are far broader and deeper than PHP's. At least with PHP, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the language. Python, on the other hand, is beyond salvation.

Just one example: The whitespace issue isn't simply a matter of personal preference. It's why Python will NEVER have anonymous functions without laughably absurd limitations.

Comment: Re:whoosh! (Score 1) 309

by narcc (#47568635) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

That definition is decades old.

So defined by whom? On what basis? Can you direct me to the relevant literature? (Don't look too hard, you won't find anything. Since we're playing CS101, you should pay particularly close attention to formal language theory, which you'll find quite illuminating.)

HTML5+CSS3 is known to be Turing complete, yet no one would call HTML5+CSS3 a "programming language". There are other languages which are broadly recognized as "programming languages" which are not Turing complete. (CS101 again: TM's provide just one of many models of computation. Another, which is not Turing complete, would be FSM's. There are many others.)

See, this thread is all about informal definitions. What is considered a programming language or not in a practical sense. The problem, of course, is that everyone here seems to have forgotten that! If you want to be pedantic, a programming language can be Turing complete, or not. They're just ways in which instructions are provided to a computer.

Comment: Re:whoosh! (Score 1) 309

by narcc (#47567037) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

It's not about mere basic arithmetic, it's about whether or not symbolic computation is possible. The litmus test is whether or not you can write a simulation of a universal Turing Machine within the computer language.

Oh, in that case, HTML5 +CSS3 qualifies. The more you know.

Despite that fact, no one in their right mind would describe the combination that way. I'd find better criteria, if I were you.

Comment: Re:wrong bro (Score 1) 309

by narcc (#47562175) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

we can get pedantic about the difference between "coding" and "programming" languages

No, you can't. There is no formal distinction. There isn't even a commonly understood / agreed upon informal distinction!

Pretending that such a distinction exists is just another silly way for the otherwise unskilled to make themselves feel superior to their peers.

Comment: Re:Repeat after me... (Score 1) 309

by narcc (#47562141) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

Yes, you're right.

The fact that you think not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited showcases that your programming experience is limited to front-end development.

It's clear that he thinks that anyone who thinks that "not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited" somehow indicates that that person's "programming experience is limited to front-end development"

It's far more irrational than I originally thought!

One is (obviously) not an indicator of the other. You'd think will all the self-proclaimed "rationalists" on Slashdot that this sort of nonsense wouldn't be so prevalent.

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Working...