HP, with their non-Android based WebOS, was the only company capable of making a dent - or a beachhead - against iPad sales. When you have two parties making h/w and s/w for a tablet all you get is finger pointing and blame when problems arise. My LG Optimus smartphone crashes/reboots about once a week. Nobody takes responsibility. I cannot pay $50 to get Android 2.3 or 3.0. As soon as I buy the device the support is gone. It's the disposable feature-phone market all over again, but this time with tablets and Android.
It's not always the tech or sexiness of the Apple brands that attract people, it's their commitment to fixing bugs. (I'm not saying they're superb at it, but nobody else seems to be trying at all)
He said it was $7k/yr FLAT FEE. That means it doesn't change no matter how many people he hires. In fact, the regulations are set up so that he should hire as many people as possible to get the most use out of his $7k.
Also, if you can code the change yourself it gets rejected as "not a bug" for a few times, then they think about it and say that it's too late for any reasonable release and that it will go into PHP 6 or 5.3 or something that you won't upgrade too because it breaks too much other stuff.
Boo, deleted short tags. Why do people hate short tags again? I can't remember because <? is not valid XML so there shouldn't be any problems with mixing php and xml... hmm... I wonder ....
So when someone uses <?php in their XML document and tries to run it through PHP, will the collective PHP-internals community explode? React? Ignore it?
<%= has been the compatible way forward since 1996 or so, and the community has chosen to ignore it. We've successfully migrated away from HTTP_GET_VARS, register_globals, and other bad habits. But somehow <?php is lorded over others as 'the one true way', as if somehow typing more boilerplate to avoid conflict with 0.02% of the use cases where there's a problem is something to be proud of.
Can we please give up this ``is-valid-XML'' argument already?
Quick counter-example:
<?php echo 'foo ?>' ?>
Guess what:
- if interpreted as XML, the processing instruction ends at the first ?>
- if interpreted as PHP, the PHP code ends at the sencond ?>
...which makes the argument against short tags -- XML validity -- moot. Can't be fixed without breaking backward compatibility either. Let's drop the argument now; otherwise somebody well-meaning will try to apply it and will end up breaking backward-compatibility (and removing a neat feature) yet keeping XML-compatibility broken anyway. Just like Robert Eisele did.
Agreed... I've never used <? in a non-PHP context and it's way easier to type than <?php all the time. Why not just leave it in, or at least change it to something just as short but unique?
Awesome. I remember arguing for it on the mailing lists and I'm extremely happy they did this.
With echo tag you can have a very simple and powerful templating system written in the language itself. (I usually just use two methods, Temaplte::show and Template::get, which both are less than 20 lines long.)
Short tags are why I don't need a template engine for PHP. And can write <?=$name?> instead of <?php echo $name;?>. This had been a unique feature that no other scripting language offers. This is a historic sign indicating that PHP was designed for the web.
It always bugged me that the PHP community didn't pick up on this and run with it. We've had ASP tags since the beginning (almost?) but I think people avoid it out of some anti-MS stance. Rails runs with <%= just fine.
OTOH, you shouldn't ever be generating XML headers from PHP anyway (XHTML is a dead-end, and raw XML should be generated by an XML library), so this shouldn't be that big of an issue.
But, less than question mark and a space are not a valid XML combination. XML processing instructions cannot begin with a space. Likewise, PHP cannot run commands into the short tags, like <?echo $foo; ?>. So, there really is no collision, it's just grandstanding.
Yes, they feel invisible because they weren't made because the guy had an accident because he shows up to work high and operates heavy machinery and gets hospitalized and the company's insurance rates go up.
The performance issues have just been masked with caching. The template layer makes hundreds of useless classes each request. Could speed it up 40% or so with flyweight pattern on the template classes. Could reduce memory usage each request by not using XML config files and not included configs for modules that are turned off.
I think that was the point of the 'ZF' comment. Whatever varien had as an ecommerce package before their ZF uptake was likely different enough from what Magento was that it's not terribly accurate or useful to say "magento's been around for 10 years".
Magento in its current form has been around for ~4 years.
Wikipedia even indicates that Varien was using osCommerce before Magento was developed, so they likely didn't have a full commerce stack of their own for the last 10 years.
It's not always the tech or sexiness of the Apple brands that attract people, it's their commitment to fixing bugs. (I'm not saying they're superb at it, but nobody else seems to be trying at all)