dscrd

Proof is right there in the article. To have PHP on the live server is a security risk, period.

2. That Go is designed as a programming language.

I'm being serious. Unless you have Facebook's resources (and probably not even then) DO NOT USE PHP FOR ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES SECURITY! If you are, start a migration process today. Whatever you think it'll cost, it'll be worth it.

If you cannot decide from the billions of choices out there, go with Go. It's hardly perfect, but way better and simple.

Well, if you like PHP, how could you like language arguments? After all, they always end up destroying your beliefs.

"There are many" equals "almost all are bad".

I don't quite see how this might be a problem. Does the author think those people would be less great in another environment? Does PHP own these people?

"Often times, people are just complaining about PHP because it’s a popular thing to do."

No. We do not complain about PHP because it's popular. We complain about PHP because it sucks and we are forced to use it.

Many of the so-called 4th generation languages (i.e. business shits derived from Cobol with DB support bolted in) are totally crazy in this sense. Not only are identifiers often case insensitive, they can also be abbreviated!

Yet people make massive amounts of money with them.

Python isn't the fastest dog out there, but doesn't fare so badly with the abstractions, and its OO style suits a dynamic language better. It doesn't try to be a Java.

Neither language will give you much protection against programming errors, nor optimize your code very well like many of the new hip languages (Rust, Go, Nim) do.

If you focus on the latter part of the sentences, I can see how it's easy to be a bit confused about which is the correct answer.

Given that OpenBSD is supposed to be a security-oriented OS, it's slightly weird that they are using a version control system that does not guarantee that what you put in the repo actually stays there, unchanged. Git guarantees that.

> They are arguably one of the best projects at doing it.

What makes you think that?

Can you elaborate on that?

Learning Haskell adds to the mass of things you know, and the volume of that mass determines the level of your general expertise.

You asked for tangible things, but it's harder to see what those may be. Perhaps your perception will be enhanced: perhaps you will better see and care about side-effects, opportunities for pure functions, etc.

I don't think any learning effort that leads to increased knowledge can be a waste of time.

Which ideas would you think are worth stealing from there?

mtgox? :)

>TBH if a "developer" cringes their nose at a very capable tool, just because it is not the latest "cool" thing, It tells me a lot about them.

This is called the straw man fallacy. You wrongly assume that the lack of coolness is why people dislike PHP and you dismiss the whole argument based on that.

Doing great stuff with PHP is like building a skyscraper using nothing but a hammer and a screwdriver and a few rotten planks. It's the builder who's amazing (albeit a bit crazy), not the hammer, the screwdriver or the planks. Imagine what he might've made with proper equipment?

Would you like to live in such a skyscraper?

The stackage is there to fix this, but it's not yet the default.

Something similar to this seems to be true for every piece of programming technology that is popular. How did it come to this? Other professions don't go in masses towards the worst solutions, do they?

People keep saying that about The Shootout, but I don't think so. They reflect the combination of two qualities: the main implementation of the language, and the community around the language. It's way too cynical to say that the results cannot be taken seriously -- they just have to be taken carefully.

For instance, we can see that the Rust community was able to make their runs quite snappy quite easily, even though the implementation isn't even ready yet. That's impressive!