GCSE Computer Science

[Midnight]

Why are you explaining this to me? Of course I know that they are frameworks...they replace applications written purely in PHP. That's my point. I'm not sure what yours is. PHP is a terrible language to do anything with.

 

My point is that it doesn't make sense to compare a language with a framework because they have different roles and purposes.

 

Also, frameworks have trade-offs and their own set of risks. And just because an application created by a framework can replace an application in PHP doesn't make the framework "better" than PHP. I'm not even sure what "better" means without context, but if you refer to the coding style, then this shouldn't be an issue for a good programmer.

 

Finally, it doesn't matter if you think PHP is a terrible language. I think C++ is a terrible language, but I use it all the time and people use it all the time as well.

[Builder]

My point is that it doesn't make sense to compare a language with a framework because they have different roles and purposes.

 

Also, frameworks have trade-offs and their own set of risks. And just because an application created by a framework can replace an application in PHP doesn't make the framework "better" than PHP. I'm not even sure what "better" means without context, but if you refer to the coding style, then this shouldn't be an issue for a good programmer.

 

Finally, it doesn't matter if you think PHP is a terrible language. I think C++ is a terrible language, but I use it all the time and people use it all the time as well.

So many fallacies, so little time. "This shouldn't be an issue for a good programmer." Let me put it to you this way: a good carpenter could probably build a house with a rock instead of a hammer, yes? How many good carpenters do you see bashing shit with rocks? PHP is the rock, Rails is the hammer.

 

If you're trying to tell me that PHP serves a different purpose than Rails from a broad perspective then you clearly haven't done much web development. Let me be clear here: many shitty apps have been written in Rails. Many great apps had been written in PHP. However most of the great apps written in PHP would probably be much better if they were written in Rails while none of the shitty apps written in Rails would be better of with PHP.

 

And you're right. It doesn't matter that I think PHP is a terrible language, it matters that it actually is one. Object orientation in general is a mistake but PHP takes all the best parts of structured programming and object orientation and ignores them.

 

Rails is also not the crown of web frameworks. It's one of the better solutions out there, but it's still far from optimal. Object orientation is broken, and MVC only makes it slightly better. The ideal web framework would be something lightweight written in a pure functional language like Haskell ensuring maximum productivity and safety, perhaps implementing a version of the actor model for controlling different parts of the backend and allowing intercommunication between the separate parts.

 

I fail to parse the syntax of your last sentence. What are you trying to say? The most popular tools are almost never the best ones. Trust me, the world would be a much better place if LISP had come out on top of C. C++ is just taking C and making it worse.

[Midnight]

So many fallacies, so little time. "This shouldn't be an issue for a good programmer." Let me put it to you this way: a good carpenter could probably build a house with a rock instead of a hammer, yes? How many good carpenters do you see bashing shit with rocks? PHP is the rock, Rails is the hammer.

 

You just proved my point that it is nonsensical to compare a language with a framework. A hammer is not a rock, nor a rock a hammer. Well done.

 

Like I said before, this isn't a fair comparison. It would make more sense to compare a PHP framework, like Symfony, with Rails or any other non-PHP ones, or conversely compare PHP with Ruby, Python, Javascript, etc.

 

If you're trying to tell me that PHP serves a different purpose than Rails from a broad perspective then you clearly haven't done much web development. Let me be clear here: many shitty apps have been written in Rails. Many great apps had been written in PHP. However most of the great apps written in PHP would probably be much better if they were written in Rails while none of the shitty apps written in Rails would be better of with PHP.

 

I should have said they are similar, but different in terms of development. With a language, there are less restrictions on what you can legally write, so you can form your own style. With a framework, there are much more restrictions, which usually leads to one style of coding.

 

And I have also said this before; in software development, the term "better" is meaningless without context, such as performance, features, or user experience, so your last statement is basically a meaningless claim. 

 

And you're right. It doesn't matter that I think PHP is a terrible language, it matters that it actually is one.

You don't understand analogies, do you? The point was that your opinion does not matter on how widely the language is used.

 

Object orientation in general is a mistake but PHP takes all the best parts of structured programming and object orientation and ignores them.

No and disagree.

 

Rails is also not the crown of web frameworks. It's one of the better solutions out there, but it's still far from optimal. Object orientation is broken, and MVC only makes it slightly better. The ideal web framework would be something lightweight written in a pure functional language like Haskell ensuring maximum productivity and safety, perhaps implementing a version of the actor model for controlling different parts of the backend and allowing intercommunication between the separate parts.

I mentioned nothing about Rails, so you are randomly defending it for no reason. Again, OOP is not broken. It is cumbersome at times, but not broken.

 

Languages do not "ensure maximum productivity and safety", nor do programming paradigms, like OOP or FP. Only developers can ensure such things, and it does not matter which languages or paradigms you use, as long as they are used well and appropriately.

 

I fail to parse the syntax of your last sentence. What are you trying to say? The most popular tools are almost never the best ones. Trust me, the world would be a much better place if LISP had come out on top of C. C++ is just taking C and making it worse.

I agree that the most popular ones are almost never the best ones. However, they might have been the best ones at the time.

 

And no, the world would have been a much different place if LISP came ahead of C.

 

Please, refrain from using the word "better" without context in the world of software development.

[iHammmy]

PLEASE STOP ARGUING ON MY FUCKING THREAD.

 

REPORTED @Midnight and @Builder TO MODERATORS.

[Matdo]

Hey, I am about to end my computing GCSE and can tell you what you'll be doing. The majority of your time will be spent doing controlled assessments.

 

The first one that I did was where you are given a section of HTML and JavaScript code. You have to add to or modify the code according to the instructions. During the first one, you are allowed to (and encouraged) to do a lot of research on it. In fact, its best to pretend that you've researched even if you haven't. The second controlled assessment is one where no contact is allowed. For me, I was told to write a series of ciphers in a "high-level programming language". I had to write a Caesar Cipher and a Keyword Cipher. For the exam itself, its good to be able to convert between Hex, Binary, Denary and Ascii. Understanding and being able to draw flowcharts and being able to write pseudo code is good as well. Furthermore, there are questions about what RAM stands for or other basic stuff.

 

My main advice is when it comes to the exam, find a revision book and briefly go through it, making sure that there are no gaps in your knowlege. When it comes to the controlled assessment, my main advice is to spend a lot of time writing up exactly what you're doing with screenshots. My teacher told me that whilst marking, they do not even look at your program. They mainly focus on how well you are writing up and planning your program.

[Builder]

You just proved my point that it is nonsensical to compare a language with a framework. A hammer is not a rock, nor a rock a hammer. Well done.

You don't understand analogies, do you? Ruby is the hammer, PHP is the rock. Was that so hard?

 

Like I said before, this isn't a fair comparison. It would make more sense to compare a PHP framework, like Symfony, with Rails or any other non-PHP ones, or conversely compare PHP with Ruby, Python, Javascript, etc.

Ruby and Python are clearly better than PHP to basically any developer that has used them. Many would say JavaScript is too but the syntax is incredibly clumsy.

 

I should have said they are similar, but different in terms of development. With a language, there are less restrictions on what you can legally write, so you can form your own style. With a framework, there are much more restrictions, which usually leads to one style of coding.

If you think there is a canonical style for Rails apps or apps written in any framework you should try maintaining them for a living. Fundamentally though all programs in Rails are procedural and imperative and thus broken or at least not as good as a functional language.

 

And I have also said this before; in software development, the term "better" is meaningless without context, such as performance, features, or user experience, so your last statement is basically a meaningless claim. 

Alrighty then. Any functional language is better than PHP. They allow more concise code that is easy to maintain and reuse and often provably correct. QED.

 

You don't understand analogies, do you? The point was that your opinion does not matter on how widely the language is used.

My opinion may not matter for the language's current popularity but when newbs ask what language they should learn to program in I will never, ever say PHP.

 

No and disagree.

Suit yourself. When you've amassed enough technical debt in PHP to think otherwise, call me and we can talk.

 

I mentioned nothing about Rails, so you are randomly defending it for no reason. Again, OOP is not broken. It is cumbersome at times, but not broken.

I'm not going to go into it here, suffice it to say that you probably can't define what OOP is and neither can anyone else. For the purposes of description, OOP does not exist. It was based off of a flawed interpretation of a rant by Alan Kay which he regrets today. Every language has a slightly nuanced interpretation.

 

Languages do not "ensure maximum productivity and safety", nor do programming paradigms, like OOP or FP. Only developers can ensure such things, and it does not matter which languages or paradigms you use, as long as they are used well and appropriately.

That's complete and utter bullshit. If you think that's the case try rewriting vBulletin in COBOL and then tell me it doesn't matter what language you use.

 

Also, you're wrong about safety, and productivity. Try Coq or Agda or Haskell and learn Lambda Calculus. Purely functional programs are provably correct leaving them only subject to errors lower in the stack due to fundamental impurities in any modern processor and resource constraints. Purely functional programs are also more concise, more maintainable, and allow more code reuse than imperatively written counterparts. If you give FP a try you will discover that basing a programming language off of a fundamental system of logic and notation makes a lot of sense.

 

I agree that the most popular ones are almost never the best ones. However, they might have been the best ones at the time.

No, LISP.

 

And no, the world would have been a much different place if LISP came ahead of C.

No, objectively better.  LISP is easier to write, easier to read, and eliminates entire classes of bugs.

 

Please, refrain from using the word "better" without context in the world of software development.

Please refrain from the world of software development without the context of mathematics.

[Guest]

Alrighty then. Any functional language is better than PHP. They allow more concise code that is easy to maintain and reuse and often provably correct. QED.

 

I don't think "QED" means what you think it means.

 

Which is interesting, given you keep going on about formal logic and functional programming.

[Midnight]

-snip-

 

I'm not going to argue with you out of OP's "request". Alright? You dodged my point of language vs framework comparison and went on a crazy tirade about functional programming, which I wasn't even arguing about in the first place.

 

Now...

 

Dear OP,

 

It would be helpful to know WHICH programming language you will be learning and using in your class. If it is Python, then python.org (or even Googling Python programming language) will give you everything you need to know, such as tutorials. In fact, Googling any programming language will give information about the language, but the amount will depend on the support and popularity of that language.

 

Now, if it is programming in general, then codeacademy.com and Lynda.com will serve you well with their tutorials. However, the most important part of learning is understanding the topic at hand and practicing the topic(s) you have learned.

 

On a more personal note, the best way I learned programming is reading and understanding the documentation and concepts first and then practicing by writing and testing real code. Practice may not make perfect, but it certainly does help.

 

I bid you good day(or night) and good luck with your education.

 

Midnight

 

 

[Builder]

I don't think "QED" means what you think it means.

 

Which is interesting, given you keep going on about formal logic and functional programming.

Oh, come on, if you think a single english sentence is a valid proof enough not to recognize that sarcasm why are you bringing up formal logic? It was a joke! 

 

Of course I know what QED means or I wouldn't be going on about logic in programming. You don't understand analogies, do you?

 

(and yes, I understand analogies. that's my default response for frustration now.)

 

 

I'm not going to argue with you out of OP's "request". Alright? You dodged my point of language vs framework comparison and went on a crazy tirade about functional programming, which I wasn't even arguing about in the first place.

I totally didn't dodge it. You misunderstood my comparison so I clarified. Then you tried to argue that OOP isn't an unmitigated disaster and that functional programming isn't safer, which it objectively is.

[Midnight]

Of course I know what QED means or I wouldn't be going on about logic in programming. You don't understand analogies, do you?

 

(and yes, I understand analogies. that's my default response for frustration now.)

 

 

Way to steal my stuff, ass.

[Builder]

Way to steal my stuff, ass.

I'm sorry, you can't hold copyright over such a common sentence, and even if you could, this is protected by fair use.

 

It's not stealing, but boy are you petty.

[Guest]

Of course I know what QED means or I wouldn't be going on about logic in programming. You don't understand analogies, do you?

 

(and yes, I understand analogies. that's my default response for frustration now.)

 

I don't think "analogies" means what you think it means.

[Builder]

I don't think "analogies" means what you think it means.

Now you're just trolling.

 

Go away.

[Guest]

Now you're just trolling.

 

Go away.

 

Sure. I'll leave you to your very important discussion on the merits of PHP.

[Midnight]

I'm sorry, you can't hold copyright over such a common sentence, and even if you could, this is protected by fair use.

 

It's not stealing, but boy are you petty.

 

Oh, come on. It was a joke!

[Builder]

Oh, come on. It was a joke!

Well you might have refrained from insulting me if you were only joking...as I did.

[iHammmy]

.:THREAD CLOSED:.

[Guest]

.:THREAD CLOSED:.

 

That's not how it works.

[iHammmy]

That's not how it works.

[Guest]

 

 

Why not both.

[iHammmy]

Why not both.

[Guest]

 

 

Why not both.

[Midnight]

Well you might have refrained from insulting me if you were only joking...as I did.

 

You don't understand sarcasm, do you?