He is more experienced than you, that’s for certain. And he recognises sellable software when he sees it.
I have never lied in this discussion. It is you who keeps twisting my words and inserting meanings that were never there.
My understanding is better than you think, which is why I do not follow bad advice, especially when it is nothing but unadulterated dogma.
That description fits YOU to a tee. For the record I have never argued that someone who does not code the same way that I do is a bad programmer, I have simply stated that my approach is different. It is YOU who keeps insisting that because I don’t code the exact way that you do that I must be a bad programmer.
Incorrect. I will embrace new technologies when there is benefit in doing so and not just because they exist.
Absolute rubbish. If you bothered to read my profile at http://www.tonymarston.net/aboutme/index.html you would see that I did not touch PHP until 2002. I rewrote my existing framework in PHP using OO concepts, I learned about writing web applications instead of desktop applications, I learned about writing and using web services. My point is that I am willing to learn things which are useful and of practical benefit, but my decades of experience has also taught me to avoid impractical ideas which are based on nothing but unadulterated dogma.
So explain to me how an autoloader is “impractical”? An autoloader is a pragmatists dream.
My argument is based upon decades of academic work, respected authors, programmers from google, microsoft and ibm and the people who write the languages we program in, who all disagree with you. Yours is based on… your own opinion.
But that is exactly what YOU have been doing. You keep insisting that because I could change my code to suit your preferred style then I should.
Which is correct.
When used in circumstances for which DI was not designed.
I have never said that these modern programming practices are “useless”, just that “I have no use for them”. There is a difference between those two statements which you refuse to understand.
I do understand them, it is just that my interpretation and implementation is different from yours. I have never said that my interpretation is superior to yours, just that it is different.
I am merely providing a different viewpoint which anyone is entitled to do. It is up to the reader to decide if my viewpoint has merit or not. It is YOU who keeps maintaining that YOUR view is the only one which is allows to exist.
Incorrect. It is you, and others like you, who keep going off topic and introducing samples of my code and saying “here is an example of the crap code which this crap programmer writes”. When attacked in such a manner I have the right to defend myself.
I never said that my method of implementing DI was better. I simply provided an example of where I actually use DI in my framework to go with the explanation of where I do not use DI in my framework in those circumstances where I deemed it to be inappropriate and of no benefit.
Stop trying to make this a false dichotomy. You are going against the grain, and a lot of this stuff isn’t as much of a grey area as you’re trying to make it out to be.
It is not a lie. “Having include statements” and “Having a problem with include statements” are two entirely different things. I do NOT have any sort of problem with include statements, therefore I do not need any sort of solution which replaces what I have already implemented.
Isn’t improving the code its own benefit? It’s a learning exercise. Anecdotally: I questioned the need of anonymous functions in PHP when they came out, it wasn’t until I hit a problem where I could use one, and chose to do so that I saw the benefit of them. Now I can use them where they’re useful as I have learnt that. Your approach seems to be “Nothing new is useful, never use it”
I am not moving the goalposts. That is your speciality.
Yes, I could have, but I chose not to because it would have meant changing my entire framework for absolutely zero benefit by solving a problem that I don’t have.
Yet another flat out lie. No it doesn’t. You could have just used an autoloader for the new parts of the framework and adjusted other code whenever (if ever) you worked on it.
They ARE a practical solution if you want to find an alternative to writing lots of include statements. But if you don’t have that problem then you don’t need that solution.
I did actually point out a very real problem in your code back in #126, though that doesn’t appear to have been addressed. My point is especially pertinent considering that you have code that composes filenames based on values held in the $GLOBALS super
You said “I don’t have the problem autoloaders solve” the only way to demonstrate the inaccuracy of that statement was to look at the code that you were referring to.
You do realize, I meant major refactor, like to rebuild major parts of the software to match more modern practices and to make it easier to work with, which any framework MUST do. I don’t think the majority of devs today would touch your framework with a 10 foot pole or even a 20 foot pole.
Oh, but I know. They are all just mindless monkeys anyway, so it doesn’t matter, right?
Yes, I saw that but I think his quote of your quote of my post suggests he either didn’t see my post or chose not to address the actual points made in it.
I think I did actually quantify the improvement available sufficiently.
It may surprise you to now that for every article published on the internet which expresses a particular opinion on any particular aspect of software development, it is possible to find dozens of other articles which express a different or contrary opinion. So when you say that I am not following the advice of the industry experts I am afraid that you are quite wrong. I am simply ignoring the advice of your chosen experts and agreeing with that of my chosen experts. I prefer to side with those who have a more pragmatic approach to software development rather than those who can do nothing but regurgitate volumes of unadulterated dogma.
But again you’re creating a false dichotomy. It’s like global warming is a lie people… 99% of scientists say global warming is a fact based on overwhelming empirical evidence, you’re effectively siding with the 1% here. You’re trying to pretend this is some sort of 50/50 thing when it really isn’t.