Talk:PHP - Definition and Overview

Criticisms section

I wish there were a consistent "voice" employed in the Criticisms section of this page. I wish there were a simple table editor available in WYSIWIG mode employed throughout this Wiki. I wish there were a non-techy-oriented version alongside, or somehow more prominently displayed/call-attention-to throughout the article. Anyoo, I made the last sentence first in the criticisms section. Hope that's ok.

)olc

I wish the whole Criticisms section would consist of anything else than propaganda...

I also wonder if the criticisms section can be called objective. The mention of ASP.NET might not be thought as an ad, but it comes across as an recomendation: "Don't take PHP, take ASP.NET."

It's a statement of fact.. feel free to add other web app systems which aren't as vulnerable to cross-site scripting attacks as PHP. Rhobite 22:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I love PHP to death, and while I use ASP.NET at work I very much dislike many of the things it imposes and ways it forces you to do things. However, I was the one who added the criticism, and indeed the "ad" for ASP.NET. Being able to point out the faults in a language and not be afraid to mention other, inferior (in your opinion) languages is called confidence. And if people see the "ad" for ASP.NET, and like it better... that's great! There's no reason everyone has to use PHP; just reasons why PHP is better (but, that's just my opinion, not theirs.) -[Unknown] 10:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not the one disputing the neutrality of this article, however, I consent. Should that really be in a Wikipedia article?

I think it would be sufficient for solving this particular issue only to refer to "other languages" and change the wording from "PHP does not" to "PHP leaves it to the programmer".

Furthermore the whole criticisms section should be reworked.

I don't mind comparisons to other languages and platforms. However, goose, gander. Feel free to go into the ASP.net article and compare it to PHP unfavorably. --Stevietheman 16:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PHP extension

... other sites (like Wikipedia) tend to dispense with the .php extension. This is (I assume) true, but the odd ".phtml" extension does sneak out from under the covers: this AFAIK is an HTML page with PHP content. Would it be fairer to say that Mediawiki (I assume rather than just Wikipedia) tends to hide most PHP-related extensions? Phil 14:54, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

The 'other' extensions, such as .php3, .phtml, etc. are all going out, especially because many servers don't parse them. The most universal one is .php, and it is by far the most often used. When you see this in MediaWiki, it's because you're following a "direct" link that isn't being redirected through a rewrite or path info.

It is a common thing to avoid use of the .php extension, and more significantly of query strings, when possible because Google tends to treat sites it can flag as "generated content" much worse than those that are static (or generated ones that pretend.) However, this is okay if you don't want the page on Google - for example, this edit page is wiki.phtml?... and no one searches for edit pages, so this is perfect.

My point is, it's not that MediaWiki is hiding .php and failing to hide .phtml, but rather that it is just not *always* hiding the .phtml. I would suggest the text is fine as-is. -[Unknown] 21:05, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy

The article currently seems quite to advocate PHP a little too much. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) (Python programmer).

You first correct Python programming language and come back. I don't find any advocacy here. You should learn PHP to know what is true and what is hype.--Rrjanbiah 07:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Date for library list

Could somebody provide a date for the complete list of libraries? In other words "This is a complete list of libraries as of <insert date here>." 216.74.222.174 05:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the parenthetical list of possible expansions of the abbreviation detracts from the introductory paragraph. I think it should be reduced to:

PHP (PHP Hypertext Preprocessor) is a widely used open-source programming language...

The other names should be moved somewhere else in the article. Possibly to the history section? --Rory ☺ 14:31, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and make the changes. -- Stevietheman 14:55, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to mention earlier that I went ahead and made the changes.  :) -- Stevietheman 14:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pros and cons

I am definitely a major supporter of PHP, but this article could use a "Pros and cons" section like that in the Delphi article. It's a good way to help people better understand if this is the language/platform they should use for their project, and have the ability to compare/contrast to other languages' capabilities. I probably won't have the time to write this in the near future, but if anyone is so inclined, please go ahead and do it. -- Stevietheman 14:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am both a fan AND detractor of PHP. I hope my addition of a criticism section meets with everyone's approval. AdmN 19:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a good writeup or at least a start. I cleaned it up a little. -- Stevietheman 20:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the criticisms are funny and looks like intentionally found/written. Just curious, where else such criticism is available? --Rrjanbiah 05:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "intentionally found," though I assume you are implying a non-neutral point of view. I use PHP on a semi-regular basis. Like any language on Earth, it is great at some things, and not so great at others. All in all, I enjoy PHP. It allows me to do things that would be nearly impossible, (or at least really hard), without it. It is, in fact, the only server-side technology that I have ever really gotten into.

This page: [1] (http://tnx.nl/php) both provides criticism and the following links: [2] (http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2002/papers/html/php/), [3] (http://n3dst4.com/articles/phpannoyances/), [4] (http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2003/Aug/13/HATE-PHP), [5] (http://www.webkreator.com/php/community/php-love-and-hate.html).

AdmN 06:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PHP is now 5 and many of the criticisms are now not valid. Like many other languages, PHP is also inspired by C's function names (like strcmp, stricmp, etc). I see, much of the criticism are like complaining C's syntax by an assembler diehard who is confined to only one way of thinking and syntax. --Rrjanbiah 10:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't be afraid of criticism. The listed criticisms of PHP 4 are based on facts (otherwise, I would have edited them out). We should also realize that many of us will be using PHP 4 for a long time before migrating to PHP 5. Even if PHP 5 has fixed some of the problems, most PHP developers have to deal with web hosting providers that haven't upgraded for months (or maybe even years) to come. -- Stevietheman 13:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, but criticising old version (which is fixed and improved now) is not pleasing. Also, _criticising PHP because it is PHP_ is not interesting, IMHO; otherwise the computing world is only with 1s and 0s without C, PHP, etc. --Rrjanbiah 06:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not pleasing to whom? It's pleasing to me to know facts about any language I might choose for a project. Further, PHP is not being singled out here. Delphi has a "Pros and cons" section, and other languages includes criticisms as well. Let's not get worked up over this. -- Stevietheman 14:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IDE explanations please

The IDE section could do with being more than just a list of links. I for one could do with some sort of explanations as to the relative strengths/weaknesses of the various IDEs, together with which OS they work on. --Phil | Talk 10:24, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

There is a wonderful site dedicated to this [6] (http://www.thelinuxconsultancy.co.uk/phpeditors/). My favorite is PHPEdit [7] (http://www.phpedit.net/) (now not free), PHP Coder, devPHP and Komodo (All on XP). --Rrjanbiah 05:39, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Library list links

The library list contains some links to completely irrelevant articles like stream (chiefly about moving water) and token (a disambiguation page) that should be renamed to their appropriate computer counterparts. Livajo 19:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had updated about 1 third of the list (with links to manual and checking all wiki-links), saved it, to continue a day or two later. But my changes was reverted by Stevietheman. Why? Because it was partial, or because my work is unwanted? I don't want to finish it, if it is just going to be reverted again. -- Myplacedk 22:07, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to re-revert Stevietheman's edits if he doesn't give a reason for his reversion. I glanced at the history and I can't see any clear reason to revert.—Rory ☺ 23:01, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Reason: There's no point in providing external links there--it's clutter. The wikilinks should point to articles that provide the external links. It's better to trust that the wikilinked articles will provide that info, and if they don't, they will/should eventually. -- Stevietheman 23:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It hink there is a point. For example, the current list mentions the COM-extention, which of course linked to Component object model (AFTER my update). But that article does not mention PHP's implementation of it, of course. The "Direct IO" extention linked to an article about what I/O is, in computer terms. This is also great, but of course, again, the article says nothing about the PHP implementation of it. I think these external links are quite useful, but if I'm the only one... -- Myplacedk 05:13, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not the complete unabridged PHP reference. -- Stevietheman 05:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I agree about clutter but didn't the edits also remove ambiguous links? I would recommend the same edits but without the external links for the reasons given by Stevietheman.—Rory ☺ 00:44, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the external links was the easy part. The time consuming part of my work was updating the wiki links. I'll re-revert... -- Myplacedk 05:13, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I will agree to any fixes of ambiguous links. I realize that I may have swept away a small degree of goodness in the revert I made. Just don't bring back the external links, please. -- Stevietheman 02:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the wiki links really isn't more worth to you, it might as just remove all af them, then it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to make the complete update. :-/ -- Myplacedk 05:13, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

And I'll revert any such changes that don't make sense. -- Stevietheman 05:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Code Example

The article features a poor code example. Control structures are not pointed out, the // comment method could be better placed to show its features. Print and echo do not do the same thing--echo dumps data out immediately to the browser, whereas I think print dumps it when it's finished processing the script. Using echo lots of times is thus not very efficient. Yes, this is an encyclopedia article, not a php reference, but a code example that showed more features of the language would be better appreciated by readers checking out different languages. --

Feel free to enhance and expand the example. -- Stevietheman 20:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I turned it into a 99 bottles of beer -example, trying to demonstrate various structures in it. What do you think? --ZeroOne 21:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, although it could be made to require less width (too much word wrapping) and fix a few errors. I'm too tired to tackle it tonite though. -- Stevietheman 06:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm using 1600x1200 resolution so I really don't know how the lines will wrap with lower resolutions. I tried to account for this but apparently didn't do it well enough. The code sure runs (PHP 4.3.something) so there are no syntactical errors. :p --ZeroOne 10:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't necessarily mean syntax errors. -- Stevietheman 16:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The differences between echo and print are often not well understood, because they are so similar. I often here people say they think there's a specific difference.. that doesn't actually exist. Please see the following, from php.net's page on print() (http://www.php.net/print):

http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/1/fid/40

In other words, the difference is that echo can take multiple parameters. This is noticably faster, in my benchmarks, than single quotes concatenated together *OR* double quote interpolation. Regardless, that's not the point... I just wanted to note that there is no such difference.

I've also slightly updated the code example with some minor conventional issues, because most people will agree it looks nicer to put spaces around operators. Additionally, I tweaked the wrapping to look nicer in 800x600, because it was so close. If you disagree, I'm sorry... it can easily be changed back.

Parrot (future of php)

I'd put a reference somewhere to possible future directions for the project. For example Lerdorf has declared in an interview they could take in account Parrot as a possible basis for future releases.

Also the licence type is not even indicated, nor the disputes about it. And history part, besides being a bit poor in my opinion, seems to overstate the role of Zend contribution. It's sure relevant but after all is a collaborative effort. ciao --Balubino 18:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's some reference. Rasmus interview (http://www.technetra.com/Writings/recent/interview_lerdorf_html/view) at Linux Bangalore meeting where he cites the convenience of using the parrot engine and why they are thinking about it. Then an article (http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/php_experts/rasmus_php.html) again by Rasmus which describes the beginning of the project and also the plans for the future. Finally php.net (http://it.php.net/history)'s history page in user manual. ciao --Balubino 18:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Coding standard?

Personally, I think the link just added, named "PHP Coding Standard", to be... not neccessarily so official. If I were new to PHP, I might think that was official with its name. I don't know what to name it otherwise, but I just wanted to ask... are things like that allowed? Could I write up a quick guide to PHP (I actually have, a decently-used tutorial on how to install the latest versions of PHP, MySQL, and Apache without the help of packages..) and just stick it on there, with a name like The Ultimate Guide to Life, the Universe, and Installation :P?

-[Unknown] 19:49, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

You might seriously consider contributing it to Wikibooks. --Phil | Talk 10:02, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps so... but, my primary concern here is simply that I'm not so sure this article (PHP) is meant to be a respository of "unofficial" documents like one proclaiming itself to be the "PHP Coding Standard (http://www.dagbladet.no/development/phpcodingstandard/)". Indeed, many of the function names built into PHP "violate" this supposed standard... -[Unknown] 16:30, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

So... I guess it's staying? Can it at least be given a different name, such as "Unofficial..." or "A common..."? -[Unknown] 09:49, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

PHP development

Following the recent "tidying" exercise, would it be an idea to move the sections on frameworks and IDEs to a new PHP development article? --Phil | Talk 14:08, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

New criticisms?

Global variables such as $_GET, for retrieving information from the URL, could cause problems as users could
manipulate poorly written code to make the website not function as intended by the author.

And why is this? Did you know that I could manipulate argv such that poorly written C programs would fail? I could also manipulate the input variables for Perl programs on the query string or in POST data such that poorly written Perl programs would fail. And, why does global make them more fallable? Simply because you were taught global is bad in school?

Sorry, but I just don't see how that is a concern at all. The register_globals one is indeed a concern, and so is the fact that by default, users are not "jailed" into a certain directory. Another concern is that, on most systems, PHP runs as nobody, often meaning that files have to be writable by everyone for things to function properly.

But... superglobals such as $_GET? Security holes? How?

-[Unknown] 09:48, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

As of PHP version 4.2.0 register_globals defaults to off (including version 5.x). I think the point is an old one and should be removed.

I still think this criticism is about as worthwhile on the page as any "glowing terms" are, or any of the horde of external links. They should all three be gone, and only the correct stuff left. Sigh.

However, the register_globals issue is a huge thing. I began work on YaBB SE back two years ago on Christmas, and not long after they had a huge cross-site scripting security vulnerability. It only worked, of course, on register_globals servers... and 4.3.0 either had just come out or came out soon after... but, well, it was still a problem for 99% of the people using YaBB SE. It was also in previous versions, not just the new release, and caused quite a scare. I remember writing up packages to easily fix the bug... but, the damage was done and many many people were hacked.

The point of my dumb little story is that it's still a problem, and I expect it will be for some time. Last time I used osCommerce, it didn't work without register_globals on... and, there are even more less professional scripts out there, and tutorials on scripting, that all pretend register_globals is always on, and is a part of PHP. Because of this... hosts oblige; it is a standard feature of PHP now, simply because nearly every server on the Internet that has PHP installed also has register_globals enabled. And error_reporting set to E_ALL ^ E_NOTICE. And short_open_tag on. These are constants now. Which means, yes, it's still a problem... as much as I hate to say it is, as much as I wish PHP 5 could fix it. -[Unknown] 01:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In response to: "And why is this? Did you know that I could manipulate argv such that poorly written C programs would fail? ( . . . ) Simply because you were taught global is bad in school?": Just because the same vulnerability exists in other languages does not mean we should not mention it in here. This is an encyclopedia article; I think that it should include as much information as it can. Though, I think it can be re-worded a bit, as what you say is still somewhat true. --qrc 03:50, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

The wording is totally rediculous. You're making it sound like if $_GET was not used (so I assume register_globals is better?) it would allieviate the problem. You're also ignoring $_POST, which is much more often the problematic one... not to mention $_COOKIE which so many people think is innocent.

However, those problems are NOT problems in PHP. They exist in every language, and can be said of any variable or data input from the user. I replaced your criticism with a more valid one; that PHP does not do any checking on the input by default. That actually makes sense for it to do - there's nothing for PHP to do to stop you from misusing $_GET.

And, if you mean using /etc/passwd in the query string, this is something PHP can protect by use of open_basedir. In other words, the criticism sounds more like a general one of newbie programmers than of PHP specifically. And the fact that it is not a criticism of PHP means it shouldn't be in the section for them!

Sorry, I just don't get why this would make any sense. -[Unknown] 08:21, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect link to newt

The link to newt is wrong but I can't find a corect link, should it be removed?

I would personally remove it... or, that is, not link it. -[Unknown] 21:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Do something about it. I cant even find any documantation on google with "newt gui" about newt. Is it a real product?Patcat88 04:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I de-linked it, as the article linked was about the animal version. However, there does appear to be a Newt text-based UI. --Stevietheman 04:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No links at all?

Tregoweth, while I strongly support your motivations and intents... was removing ALL but one of the links really necessary? Sure, many of the links being added (mostly by unregistered users) were not needed, and there were far too many (perhaps a list of PHP development tools or something would be better?)... but removing all of them? -[Unknown] 09:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I restored the links. I agree that there's probably some spam in there, but the removals should be more surgical rather than like a rape.  :) There were too many useful links for PHP developers there. -- Stevietheman 16:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any; just keep in mind who will be reading the article. Someone looking up PHP here probably doesn't know anything about it and is just looking for basic information, so links to development tools, etc., seem excessive. And shouldn't PHP developers have better places to look for links than here? :) —tregoweth 17:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this calls for a reorganization of the article or a split into separate articles. There are indeed many experienced PHP developers or experienced programmers in general who may want more extensive information about PHP, esp. about how it can be extended to do enterprise web application development. -- Stevietheman 16:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed... many of the links aren't useful, imho. For example, I am not going to even look through 22 "frameworks". To my experience they aren't that popular, really, and these aren't really articles that contribute to "PHP". If they are needed, they should be in Wikibooks or in their own article... at least in my opinion.

And, while tutorials are nice... we have the PHP wikibook which should include, theoretically, any tutorial material needed. (I know I've read somewhere that links should only be used for external information that cannot be brought into the article.) As it is, this article is getting spammed by low-grade tutorials with plenty of advertising on them. And, indeed, ones that cannot be edited and are not FDL... which is not, imho, the spirit of Wikipedia.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd like to see an intelligent paring down and moving into other spaces that are linked to, such as the PHP wikibook. -- Stevietheman 16:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For example, the Mozilla Firefox article is very popular. There is a lot of development work on it, extensions (XUL), and etc... and it has eight external links. I think less than ten is a wonderful goal.... but definitely less than twenty five! -[Unknown] 00:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Firefox probably has too few links. At any rate, this comparison is unconvincing because we're talking about a complex programming language, not unlike other complex programming languages. However, I certainly support the weeding out of light or superfluous links, as I always do. -- Stevietheman 16:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glowing terms

This article frequently speaks of PHP in glowing, exaggerative terms. I'll try to go through and change what needs to change but I am putting on an NPOV notice with the hope that people will help out. Examples: "thanks to its modular design", "easy interaction with a large number of relational database systems" (note the exclusion of MSSQL), "extensive documentation", "many contributors", "All of this "looseness" makes it very easy to do many things", "major step for PHP, because it represents its beginning adoption as a genuine programming language", "PHP, unlike ASP, has some of the largest free and open-source libraries", "PHP's object-oriented functionality has been very much enhanced", "There are many excellent help resources available".

It's also interesting that the criticism section is weasel-compliant, with much use of words like "alleged", "said to be", etc. No other section has this treatment. Rhobite 04:24, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is about as bad as Mariah Carey. Fixing it all would be an effort though. Deco 23:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The exclusion of MSSQL was most likely an oversight, although its exclusion from a list of examples isn't a POV issue. Also, I agree that some marketing terms are used therein, but to brand the article with the NPOV notice seems a tad extreme, especially since these "glowing" terms are reasonable assessments. -- Stevietheman 16:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it was a little extreme, but the article reads like an album review. NPOV disputes aren't just for political pages. And remember, truth isn't a defense to POV statements. Wikipedia does have a pro-open source bias and it's important to try and reduce this bias. Rhobite 22:34, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

External links proposal

How about we point to DMOZ (http://www.dmoz.org) instead of showing many of the links we're now using? Specifics:

• Frameworks links -> this link (http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Scripts/Frameworks/)
• Tutorials links (leaving articles in place) -> this link (http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Tutorials/)
• IDEs and debuggers -> this link (http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Tools/)

In the cases where links we have aren't in the DMOZ lists, then go to the corresponding DMOZ page and request they be added.

Re: Frameworks, we should then add a blurb regarding "what is a PHP framework?" and its importance to enterprise web application development (or something to this effect). -- Stevietheman 20:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Generally... I like it. It's much better to ask people to add their tutorials, toolkits, and etc. to DMOZ (which is a site for links) than here or another article. It also moves out the content that's supposed to not be duplicated in this article (imho, and according to my understanding of what Wikipedia is not.)

I still think you're giving to much credit to frameworks, but that's a moot point and definitely only my point of view. So if no one else disagrees, I say go for it. -[Unknown] 05:28, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK... I'll hold off on the frameworks blurb for now so that it can be discussed first. Otherwise, without objection, I'll make the changes I described. -- Stevietheman 17:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediawiki famous?

Although we certainly have a pro-Wikipedia bias here, is "MediaWiki, the software behind Wikipedia" really deserving of in-the-intro labelling as a "famous" PHP product, without mentioning dozens of more widely-known ones? Deco 11:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to improve. --Stevietheman 16:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frameworks

I just wanted to report that the Open Directory Project is now listing most of the PHP frameworks (http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/PHP/Scripts/Frameworks/) that used to be listed in this article. Enjoy! --Stevietheman 21:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandals

What's with these vandals as of late? Anything we can do to stop this? — ^| 11:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be a runaway spambot. Since it always posts a link to the same few domains, I asked on Wikitech-L for these domains to be added to the spam filter. The other option is to block the vandals on sight, which we've also been doing. Many of them are already in spam blocklists, indicating they're used to send e-mail spam as well. I guess Wikipedia could start checking IP addresses against a DNS blocklist but that would be a big change. Rhobite 15:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

"running on around 9 of the 37 million domains in their survey" Only 9 domains? LOL.