Why Hacker News Thinks PHP Won Something(gilesbowkett.blogspot.com)
gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Why Hacker News Thinks PHP Won Something
http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-hacker-news-thinks-php-won.html
18 comments
Giles is still angry that his post "Muppets" got downmodded a lot. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=172894)
I thought his criticism was valid though. (Not that he cares one bit! ;) ... Both those articles started off assuming that PHP 'won' something, and then tried to explain why by pointing out good things about PHP and its community. Neither of them started by laying down the contest rules, examining all the contenders, and picking a winner... They started with a winner and worked backwards somehow into the aether.
On the other hand, if you just realize headlines are by definition linkbait, you can make the mental substitution of the phrase "became more popular than any other toy language" for the word "won". Suddenly those articles make more sense, even if they become less controversial (or insightful) in the process.
I thought his criticism was valid though. (Not that he cares one bit! ;) ... Both those articles started off assuming that PHP 'won' something, and then tried to explain why by pointing out good things about PHP and its community. Neither of them started by laying down the contest rules, examining all the contenders, and picking a winner... They started with a winner and worked backwards somehow into the aether.
On the other hand, if you just realize headlines are by definition linkbait, you can make the mental substitution of the phrase "became more popular than any other toy language" for the word "won". Suddenly those articles make more sense, even if they become less controversial (or insightful) in the process.
from talking to Giles (I work with him), I think his problem with hacker news is that it's basically turning into another digg/reddit/slashdot type of thing. It's basically a pool of links outlining what's popular with whoever the users of the site are at the moment, and that group of people is likely to change over time.
I think what would work better is a pool of links that shows you stuff you might find interesting based on past usage (voting up/down, friending others, etc). Don't show me what's interesting to everybody who reads the site, show me what's interesting to _me_. As Giles has said in the past, I have a need for better filtering mechanisms.
I think what would work better is a pool of links that shows you stuff you might find interesting based on past usage (voting up/down, friending others, etc). Don't show me what's interesting to everybody who reads the site, show me what's interesting to _me_. As Giles has said in the past, I have a need for better filtering mechanisms.
Ah. I come here mostly for the discussion. It's honestly quite rare that the actual link is that interesting to me. In fact, the commentary here is probably the only thing that really differentiates it from Reddit/Digg.
But if he wants content personalized, Stumbleupon might be a good avenue.
But if he wants content personalized, Stumbleupon might be a good avenue.
I come here mostly for the discussion. It's honestly quite rare that the actual link is that interesting to me.
I've been finding exactly the same thing, actually. Usually when I upvote it's because the discussion is interesting, rather than the article.
I don't really have a problem with that though; reddit et al can provide links in topics of immediate interest, but the community still differentiates HN IMO.
I've been finding exactly the same thing, actually. Usually when I upvote it's because the discussion is interesting, rather than the article.
I don't really have a problem with that though; reddit et al can provide links in topics of immediate interest, but the community still differentiates HN IMO.
Actually, since you mention Stumbleupon... They have a feature where you can do friends-only stumbling, where a "friend" is someone you have subscribed too. Maybe a bunch of us could make accounts specifically for hacker related stuff, and then subscribe to one another.
Edit: I just created http://jessealdridge.stumbleupon.com/ if anyone is interested in doing this.
Edit: I just created http://jessealdridge.stumbleupon.com/ if anyone is interested in doing this.
Hacker News is still different to Digg and Reddit because those sites have a sense of humor.
One of the constants of News.YC is people worrying it's turning into d/r/s. As far as I can tell the site is about the same as it always was. (If anyone wants to check, item ids are sequential.) But I did wonder when I saw his title whether it was a contemptuous test to see if standards here had fallen so low that he could get to number 1 simply by baiting News.YC by name.
unfortunately it wasn't a test, there was no if. I knew it would work. see the link at the bottom of my post, to the summon monsters post, explaining the inevitable signal/noise decline. the tactic will become more effective as time goes on, and PHP dominating the top stories told me the decline had progressed. (I had returned to the site after a prolonged hiatus.)
it's not contemptuous, although it may seem contemptible. I just did the math, knew the tactic would become infallible over time, and used it when signs indicated it would succeed.
of course this implicitly challenges your statement that the site's the same as it ever was. I actually don't have any proof to back that up. I think it would actually be reallllllllllllllllly hard to quantify. I could say there's a frog in boiling water effect there, but then there's the possibility that HN aka News.YC simply had a bad day yesterday, and if I had chosen another day for my random return, I could have come away with the impression it was improving.
it's not contemptuous, although it may seem contemptible. I just did the math, knew the tactic would become infallible over time, and used it when signs indicated it would succeed.
of course this implicitly challenges your statement that the site's the same as it ever was. I actually don't have any proof to back that up. I think it would actually be reallllllllllllllllly hard to quantify. I could say there's a frog in boiling water effect there, but then there's the possibility that HN aka News.YC simply had a bad day yesterday, and if I had chosen another day for my random return, I could have come away with the impression it was improving.
unfortunately it wasn't a test, there was no if. I knew it would work.
Ah, the classic claim that there was never any doubt of success. Always works best after the fact.
Ah, the classic claim that there was never any doubt of success. Always works best after the fact.
I just knew you were going to say that!
Nota bene: You may think what I'm about to write has something to do with your last name, but I'm not that funny.
HN is very predictable, in some ways. It's not predictable with 100% accuracy like digg or reddit.
But, still, HN people have a group identity to a large degree. And if you attack that group identity, the group is interested in the attack and they are ready to circle the wagons.
Both interest and wagon-circling in this context mean upvoting so other people see it.
Hasn't just about everything Giles' written about HN come up on the front page?
HN is very predictable, in some ways. It's not predictable with 100% accuracy like digg or reddit.
But, still, HN people have a group identity to a large degree. And if you attack that group identity, the group is interested in the attack and they are ready to circle the wagons.
Both interest and wagon-circling in this context mean upvoting so other people see it.
Hasn't just about everything Giles' written about HN come up on the front page?
heh. got me
Mostly HN has just gotten bigger. This means that bad comments and bad posts happen more often than they used to. But good discussion also happens more often than ever.
OT, but the boiling frog myth is just that: a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
No it's not. Snopes just doesn't know how to do a literature search for anything that hasn't been written in English and more recently than 1997.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hr0aAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA300&#...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hr0aAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA300&#...
Thank for pointing that out. From your Google Books links:
How great the just perceptible change can be made to become by making the rate of change extremely slow is a matter that still remains for investigation. It is worthy of note that it has been found possible in 5.25 hours to crush a frog's foot, without a sign that the pressure was felt, by screwing down a button at the rate of 0.03 mm per minute. A similar experiment showed that a live frog can actually be boiled without a movement if the water is heated slowly enough; in one experiment the temperature was raised at the rate of 0.002 Celsius per second, and the frog was found dead at the end of 2.5 hours without having moved.(1) If a frog can be crushed or boiled without any evidence that he has noticed it, it is at least an interesting question of what can be accomplished in this direction with human beings.
(1) The literature on these experiments with frogs includes Heinzmann, Euber die Wirkung sehr allmaliger Aenderungen thermischer Reize auf die Empfindungsnerven, "Archiv f. d. ges. Physiol." (Pfluger), 1872, vi. 222. Fratscher, Euber continuirliche und langsame Nervenreizung, "Jenaische Zeitschrift," 1875, N. F. ii. 130. Sedgwick, On the Variation of Reflex Excitability in the Frog induced by changes of Temperature, "Stud. Biol. Lab., Johns Hopkins Univ.," 1882, 385.
How great the just perceptible change can be made to become by making the rate of change extremely slow is a matter that still remains for investigation. It is worthy of note that it has been found possible in 5.25 hours to crush a frog's foot, without a sign that the pressure was felt, by screwing down a button at the rate of 0.03 mm per minute. A similar experiment showed that a live frog can actually be boiled without a movement if the water is heated slowly enough; in one experiment the temperature was raised at the rate of 0.002 Celsius per second, and the frog was found dead at the end of 2.5 hours without having moved.(1) If a frog can be crushed or boiled without any evidence that he has noticed it, it is at least an interesting question of what can be accomplished in this direction with human beings.
(1) The literature on these experiments with frogs includes Heinzmann, Euber die Wirkung sehr allmaliger Aenderungen thermischer Reize auf die Empfindungsnerven, "Archiv f. d. ges. Physiol." (Pfluger), 1872, vi. 222. Fratscher, Euber continuirliche und langsame Nervenreizung, "Jenaische Zeitschrift," 1875, N. F. ii. 130. Sedgwick, On the Variation of Reflex Excitability in the Frog induced by changes of Temperature, "Stud. Biol. Lab., Johns Hopkins Univ.," 1882, 385.
It's an incredibly useful metaphor, though.
There was enough of interest in the post - about the inherent brokenness of social news - to make it worth upvoting without paying attention to the "HN sucks."
That Garfield submission on the front page, OTOH...
That Garfield submission on the front page, OTOH...
Does this mean the content of your post is a joke? Can someone just delete the link and we can move on.
There is a fundamental conflict of interests in asking for new information from a diverse cross section of people (aka the web) while also wanting to only see those things with which you already agree.
If your purpose is knowledge or worldly depth/breadth, there is probably greater value in doing exactly the opposite. You know best those things which you already like.. so exposure to those ideas you don't already like would provide the greatest bang for the cognitive buck.
If anything, we need less filters. (imo)
If your purpose is knowledge or worldly depth/breadth, there is probably greater value in doing exactly the opposite. You know best those things which you already like.. so exposure to those ideas you don't already like would provide the greatest bang for the cognitive buck.
If anything, we need less filters. (imo)
right, i'll go ahead and remove digg and reddit from my /etc/hosts blackhole then
I see your point. I don't know the answer but I am wary of group-thinking ourselves into cranky single mindedness.
But reddit, digg, and HN are all sources of group-think, not really diversity.
Of the 3, HN is the only one that really welcome true contrariness SOMETIMES, but I've still been downmodded for pointing out biases and groupthink here.
And I'm not even an asshole about it.
Of the 3, HN is the only one that really welcome true contrariness SOMETIMES, but I've still been downmodded for pointing out biases and groupthink here.
And I'm not even an asshole about it.
They always crucify the heretics. It's an group instinct that thwarts leadership and completely counter to the theoretical intention of HN. This should be a tribe of heretics.
Your made a really good point. I like HN, but the selection of headlines in the front page is mostly irrelevant to me. It just tells me the topics that people are discussing, but they are usually of less interest in my point of view.
I find many more interesting things by just scanning the "new" section. It would be nice if there was some way to have a front page with just the news that I like.
I find many more interesting things by just scanning the "new" section. It would be nice if there was some way to have a front page with just the news that I like.
From reading gilles' take on hacker news and the fact that he thinks that one of the problem is that people who waste more time vote more (because they are wasting their time reading everything on here), I wonder if limiting the number of votes to 3-5 a day would be a good move?
People who come here a bit only would have proportionally more power than before...
But a system that recommended links from past usage would be interesting (and a fun challenge to do well)
But a system that recommended links from past usage would be interesting (and a fun challenge to do well)
Slashdot already does something like that - rationing mod points. OTOH, slashdot also disproves his idea that social news (if slashdot can be called that) declines as a function of time. Today's slashdotters are a lot smarter than Diggers or redditors.
What makes HN valuable (to me at least) is a higher-grade pool of tech-savvy commenters - folks who'll bring new perspectives to a problem/issue being discussed.
...and not filling up the pages with "comments" like
>>Awesome post!
Meh, I thought that was the point. I enjoy this forum because others cull through a mass of information to find interesting things. I don't always know what I will find interesting so I choose a group to guide.
hey Matt so I'm actually writing this while telling you in Campfire that you're right. so there's not much point except that I figured a little "yep" would be useful for the discussion. and as you know I have a very specific solution in mind but we won't go there. ^_^
regarding the whole discussion vs. linkroll thing, I have to say the quality of the discussion is one place where Hacker News still really shines. I have no theory to explain that atm.
regarding the whole discussion vs. linkroll thing, I have to say the quality of the discussion is one place where Hacker News still really shines. I have no theory to explain that atm.
> headlines are by definition linkbait
pg would prefer that not to be the case, and actually frequently edits headlines to "blunt" them.
pg would prefer that not to be the case, and actually frequently edits headlines to "blunt" them.
If true: very interesting...
Vote for my new version control suggestion :-)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=439050
Vote for my new version control suggestion :-)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=439050
>>Giles is still angry that his post "Muppets" got downmodded a lot
hahaha. dude even after I clicked that I had no idea what you were talking about. however, I had to turn off a Greasemonkey script to even find the comments here. I have it set up to automatically block me from seeing whether my posts are on HN or not. if I see them, I read the comments, and get pissed off. so not I'm not still angry but yeah I did get quite mad at the time, whatever it was about.
hahaha. dude even after I clicked that I had no idea what you were talking about. however, I had to turn off a Greasemonkey script to even find the comments here. I have it set up to automatically block me from seeing whether my posts are on HN or not. if I see them, I read the comments, and get pissed off. so not I'm not still angry but yeah I did get quite mad at the time, whatever it was about.
Amusingly, since I linked to that old comment of yours, you have gotten 6 net upvotes on it.
What GM script are you using?
What GM script are you using?
I find it interesting that the story was up-voted. It can be safely considered a rant to gain attention.
I don't understand this article. I think it wouldn't have gotten as much interest without the meta-hacker news aspect, and I'd much rather see less of that stuff than less about PHP.
The thing thats most wrong with this article is the author understands exactly what the other authors meant. I don't think they were attaching any more meaning to word 'won' than having the most users. Something this author doesn't dispute. Communication was successful, if you need to add extra information about why you think PHP sucks then go ahead. It's not in conflict with those other articles.
I doubt anyone's idea of won is: earns contract programmers more money. Even here though the author contradicts himself in two ways: he says that PHP was more popular because you didn't need headers, and that this meant the "difference between driving a Honda and piloting a yacht". Then he claims that PHP had no language advantages and earns you less money.
There is a lesson in there for language designers - keep making those simple but common tasks easier, every little bit can make huge difference if its multiplied by an economic shift.
The thing thats most wrong with this article is the author understands exactly what the other authors meant. I don't think they were attaching any more meaning to word 'won' than having the most users. Something this author doesn't dispute. Communication was successful, if you need to add extra information about why you think PHP sucks then go ahead. It's not in conflict with those other articles.
I doubt anyone's idea of won is: earns contract programmers more money. Even here though the author contradicts himself in two ways: he says that PHP was more popular because you didn't need headers, and that this meant the "difference between driving a Honda and piloting a yacht". Then he claims that PHP had no language advantages and earns you less money.
There is a lesson in there for language designers - keep making those simple but common tasks easier, every little bit can make huge difference if its multiplied by an economic shift.
Yeah - this was simply trolling. But when you go through this - he actually has one interesting argument about why PHP won the biggest market share - and it is that it improved in just one aspect over the dominant language of that time - Perl.
While I agree with the assertion that warm bodies organized around a specific technology does not = win, I'm not certain that those are the only metrics for success at play in these articles.
Take the case of the small startup without an inspired coder CTO which didn't have time to wait for ruby or python programmers who went shopping for contractors. PHP can get you far and fast (and often badly).
I was interviewed to lead technology in a place like this and they knew I'd try to make them start over and abandon PHP (purist, longview). PHP had provided them capability and in their mind clearly "won" (developers existed and made themselves clearly visible on the market). They wouldn't have been in business at that point if they had held out for something better.
Take the case of the small startup without an inspired coder CTO which didn't have time to wait for ruby or python programmers who went shopping for contractors. PHP can get you far and fast (and often badly).
I was interviewed to lead technology in a place like this and they knew I'd try to make them start over and abandon PHP (purist, longview). PHP had provided them capability and in their mind clearly "won" (developers existed and made themselves clearly visible on the market). They wouldn't have been in business at that point if they had held out for something better.
Just because an article with a subjective title gets voted up doesn't mean the community necessarily agrees with it.
Unless you're on Reddit and the post is titled "Vote up if you think PHP won!!!"
Unless you're on Reddit and the post is titled "Vote up if you think PHP won!!!"
Exactly. I upvote if I think it's interesting, even if I also think it's wrong.
I upvote if I think the discussion is or might get interesting, even if the link isn't. And this isn't meant as a criticism, but boolean judgments in general don't seem to carry much data; when I read a submission, and I don't think I'm alone, I update a (lazily loaded) mental hash table with any new information on a particular key (or, less often, I add a new one). For efficiency I periodically cache this in hardware by reconfiguring neurons.
yeah but that's what bothers me. you've got a site founded by the guy who wrote "The Python Paradox" and everybody there thinks it's interesting to discuss PHP. come on! it doesn't matter if it's wrong or not. there is nothing interesting about PHP. there's nothing to learn there. there's no story. even my rant was just Economics 101.
trying to extract lessons from the design of PHP is like trying to win the lottery by wearing a trucker hat because you saw some dude in a trucker hat win the lottery. there's nothing there! you might as well be reading tea leaves. which is what I said in the rant, but you didn't get the point. you might as well be posting a picture of some tea leaves and then having a discussion about that.
yes a good enough conversationalist can extract something meaningful from anything, and that's the real challenge I was after when I wrote the rant, but if your goal is to write something interesting about what you saw on Hacker News, let me tell you, Hacker News does not make it easy for you by talking about PHP.
trying to extract lessons from the design of PHP is like trying to win the lottery by wearing a trucker hat because you saw some dude in a trucker hat win the lottery. there's nothing there! you might as well be reading tea leaves. which is what I said in the rant, but you didn't get the point. you might as well be posting a picture of some tea leaves and then having a discussion about that.
yes a good enough conversationalist can extract something meaningful from anything, and that's the real challenge I was after when I wrote the rant, but if your goal is to write something interesting about what you saw on Hacker News, let me tell you, Hacker News does not make it easy for you by talking about PHP.
The original premise of this was "why is PHP so popular?" (not "let's talk about the merits of the PHP language"), which is an interesting question precisely because many of us (yourself included, apparently) don't think PHP is a particularly interesting language.
Despite being a technically uninteresting language, it still became incredibly popular. Why?
That's why it's on Hacker News.
Despite being a technically uninteresting language, it still became incredibly popular. Why?
That's why it's on Hacker News.
there is nothing interesting about PHP
Obviously people in this community feel that there is something interesting there worth discussing. If you disagree, perhaps that implies that this community isn't a good fit for you.
Obviously people in this community feel that there is something interesting there worth discussing. If you disagree, perhaps that implies that this community isn't a good fit for you.
Just because he disagrees doesn't mean he should go away.
There are lots of people that disagree in 'challenging ways', but if everyone here saw everything the same way, there would be no discussion at all.
There are lots of people that disagree in 'challenging ways', but if everyone here saw everything the same way, there would be no discussion at all.
"A commodity can only compete on location and price, and location doesn't really get you much on the Internet."
I don't know why the author thinks PHP coding is somehow different from every other kind of programming, and that there aren't huge differences between programmers (we're talking orders of magnitude) as far as speed of output and code quality go.
I don't know why the author thinks PHP coding is somehow different from every other kind of programming, and that there aren't huge differences between programmers (we're talking orders of magnitude) as far as speed of output and code quality go.
Yeah, Giles seems kind of confused about how the PHP ecosystem works.
Those "commodity" PHP programmers who flood the market with insanely low bids? As a PHP programmer, they are not your problem. They are your client's problem, one that you can charge money to solve. Because it's really hard for a client to find good developer talent among that huge crowd. Lord knows it can't be done by screening resumes for keywords. So once you (the aspiring PHP programmer) have done a bit of work and a bit of networking, and a handful of established PHP folks have met you and filed your name in their contact lists under good PHP talent (a club that is really not that hard to join) you're likely to start getting leads. Leads who are willing to pay your price just to avoid having to screen another 5,000 resumes.
Meanwhile, that army of "commodity" programmers will be out there, energetically growing the market for your services by bringing lots and lots of new PHP-powered sites online. Every blogger who installs Wordpress, and every school and church and magazine and music label that goes online with a basic Drupal site, is a potential future customer.
Of course, just because PHP work pays decently and is easy to find doesn't mean you'll enjoy it. There's a lot of pain involved in working with PHP, particularly other people's PHP. (I ameliorate the pain somewhat by sticking strictly to Drupal, which has higher coding standards and a better defined, more modular structure than the average PHP newbie's code.) But the work is certainly out there.
Meanwhile, that army of "commodity" programmers will be out there, energetically growing the market for your services by bringing lots and lots of new PHP-powered sites online. Every blogger who installs Wordpress, and every school and church and magazine and music label that goes online with a basic Drupal site, is a potential future customer.
Of course, just because PHP work pays decently and is easy to find doesn't mean you'll enjoy it. There's a lot of pain involved in working with PHP, particularly other people's PHP. (I ameliorate the pain somewhat by sticking strictly to Drupal, which has higher coding standards and a better defined, more modular structure than the average PHP newbie's code.) But the work is certainly out there.
I believe he didn't think much, but just wanted to rant.
It's easy to see that an interference from the attribute of one good to the attribute of another is usually not sound. For example, just because bricks are commodities doesn not mean everybody is able to build proper houses.
Also, if we follow his assumptions and logic, any language that would have won the popularity contest, would have been a "looser" by his definition. For nearly everybody would code in the most popular language, therefore reducing prices for programming jobs in that language.
But, of course, this logic is also flawed. For it assumes that supply of programmers increases while demand remains more or less constant, which consequently leads to decreasing prices for programming jobs. However, the popularity of a language may also increase demand for programming jobs. Depending on the relative effects, (average) prices may decrease or increase.
It's easy to see that an interference from the attribute of one good to the attribute of another is usually not sound. For example, just because bricks are commodities doesn not mean everybody is able to build proper houses.
Also, if we follow his assumptions and logic, any language that would have won the popularity contest, would have been a "looser" by his definition. For nearly everybody would code in the most popular language, therefore reducing prices for programming jobs in that language.
But, of course, this logic is also flawed. For it assumes that supply of programmers increases while demand remains more or less constant, which consequently leads to decreasing prices for programming jobs. However, the popularity of a language may also increase demand for programming jobs. Depending on the relative effects, (average) prices may decrease or increase.
A commodity can only compete on location and price, and location doesn't really get you much on the Internet.
I used to think this until I started freelancing, but it's much easier to get quality jobs if you can meet with the client face-to-face at the start of the gig.
If you program only in the most popular programming language, you have made yourself a commodity.
The author seems to think that one PHP programmer is just as good as the next, but there's a whole litany of skills beyond just writing code in whatever language that make someone desirable to a client or employer, from communication to product design. Programmers are not cogs in a machine that you can replace easily as long as you find one that speaks the right language.
I used to think this until I started freelancing, but it's much easier to get quality jobs if you can meet with the client face-to-face at the start of the gig.
If you program only in the most popular programming language, you have made yourself a commodity.
The author seems to think that one PHP programmer is just as good as the next, but there's a whole litany of skills beyond just writing code in whatever language that make someone desirable to a client or employer, from communication to product design. Programmers are not cogs in a machine that you can replace easily as long as you find one that speaks the right language.
Giles seems to be operating on the assumption that you can't charge a reasonable amount for PHP work. Does this imply that he views himself as a commodity programmer? That if he were to be doing PHP work he'd be doing it at the same caliber of an outsourced shop in India?
Of course if this Giles character knew anything about economics he would also know that complementary products have complementary demand curves. So, the more PHP applications out there means there's more demand for PHP programmers.
Of course if this Giles character knew anything about economics he would also know that complementary products have complementary demand curves. So, the more PHP applications out there means there's more demand for PHP programmers.
Salary is not the only criterion - what if I mostly care about getting things done, not about becoming employed? (Not that I would choose PHP anyway, but still).
I am also not convinced that PHP just got lucky with the timing and that therefore there are no language design lessons to be learned. Perhaps if you get a noob into programming, they would still have an easier time with PHP than with more modern MVC based frameworks, because it is more straightforward. You still just write SQL directly in the code - it is messy, but easier to grasp than having to work through all sorts of layers of abstraction.
Maybe there IS a language lesson there - although I sure hope PHP is not the final answer...
I am also not convinced that PHP just got lucky with the timing and that therefore there are no language design lessons to be learned. Perhaps if you get a noob into programming, they would still have an easier time with PHP than with more modern MVC based frameworks, because it is more straightforward. You still just write SQL directly in the code - it is messy, but easier to grasp than having to work through all sorts of layers of abstraction.
Maybe there IS a language lesson there - although I sure hope PHP is not the final answer...
Perhaps not a "language lesson", but PHP has a great deployment story: upload then refresh your browser.
PHP allows a strong separation between system administrator (who is running Apache) and the "application developers" who are people using FTP to upload their script files to a shared host. The simplicity of the system makes it easy for anyone to get started, hence the popularity.
There is also the bit about taking an existing UI (written in HTML) and being able to insert programming hooks into it at will. The "minimal change" is very small, the biggest step is changing the file extension from html to php.
PHP allows a strong separation between system administrator (who is running Apache) and the "application developers" who are people using FTP to upload their script files to a shared host. The simplicity of the system makes it easy for anyone to get started, hence the popularity.
There is also the bit about taking an existing UI (written in HTML) and being able to insert programming hooks into it at will. The "minimal change" is very small, the biggest step is changing the file extension from html to php.
It's a rather strange argument: Use the least popular language around to make the most money. He's probably right. When I was younger (and I'm not that old) I did a stint working in COBOL. And honestly, you couldn't pay me enough to do that day in and day out!! But those that can stand it and know how to do it are paid well and have reasonable job security.
Dude's post was standard-issue comical purist bitching if you ask me. Sure, there's some value to be had by specialization, but taken to the logical conclusion dude's premise reduces to "step 1, learn fortran. step 3, make one million dollars.". Simply put, any language-specific grousing is either an expression of monkey-see-monkey-do false zealotry, or just plain wanking. The real question with any tool is, does it get the job done and from where I'm sitting PHP appears to be getting the job done for a lot of people.
So if PHP is a commodity and price wins, why would any company NOT choose PHP as it's development environment? Cost wins in business. If PHP essentially does the same thing that Ruby and Python does, there would be no reason to pay a Ruby developer more.
There are various levels of skill within any programming language. It may take someone with no programming experience a day to write a small database app in PHP. It doesn't mean that I'd be willing to hire that person to code something worthwhile for my company.
You can't simply real world situations into easily digested bites and act like you are saying something profound. In reality, you're just omitting the layers that make the real world situations complicated.
There are various levels of skill within any programming language. It may take someone with no programming experience a day to write a small database app in PHP. It doesn't mean that I'd be willing to hire that person to code something worthwhile for my company.
You can't simply real world situations into easily digested bites and act like you are saying something profound. In reality, you're just omitting the layers that make the real world situations complicated.
There's a repeatable principle in the PHP story: Know who the real customer is. In this case the real customer was shared hosting providers. In other cases you'll have to figure it out for yourself.
This isn't about PHP winning, it's about Ruby on Rails not winning, ie: losing.
Obviously C# beats the pants of both of these hippy languages so the argument is moot anyway.
Obviously C# beats the pants of both of these hippy languages so the argument is moot anyway.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that the ability to write php is less valuable then the ability to code other languages just because php is more popular. This may be true for contract work but if the majority of companies are using php it's probably in your best interest to know it. While it may be beneficial to know other languages, it could be detrimental not to know php, which could be considered a win for the language.
[deleted]
I didn't bother reading this, based on the title which assumes I think PHP won something, I guess. I used PHP for a few years, then found something better. I never thought PHP won anything, other than a momentary lapse of my reason.
Next time, be less of a generalizing dick.
Next time, be less of a generalizing dick.
This comment won't be very popular and let me explain why in case you are interested in retaining credibility for potentially well thought out things you say in the future.
First, admitting that you didn't read the article in a comment on that article is showing your hand before the call and you know for a fact it's a losing hand. In the future, just fold and keep your chips.
Second, it's important to retain your clout in a community like this and actually reading the site regularly is key. If you had been reading this week you would have seen the 2 posts riding the top two related to PHP "winning". In both cases you would have gotten grumpy and written precisely this comment on those articles. If you had, you might have actually had a lot of upvotes. This articles is a response to those posts saying something resembling your point with some meditation on the topic.
Third, and this is the key point, try harder before commenting to ascertain whether or not you agree with the article before admitting to having not read it and then personally attacking someone you don't know. If you absolutely have to attack someone, it is universally bad form to attack someone whom you agree with.
First, admitting that you didn't read the article in a comment on that article is showing your hand before the call and you know for a fact it's a losing hand. In the future, just fold and keep your chips.
Second, it's important to retain your clout in a community like this and actually reading the site regularly is key. If you had been reading this week you would have seen the 2 posts riding the top two related to PHP "winning". In both cases you would have gotten grumpy and written precisely this comment on those articles. If you had, you might have actually had a lot of upvotes. This articles is a response to those posts saying something resembling your point with some meditation on the topic.
Third, and this is the key point, try harder before commenting to ascertain whether or not you agree with the article before admitting to having not read it and then personally attacking someone you don't know. If you absolutely have to attack someone, it is universally bad form to attack someone whom you agree with.
Thank you for that very thorough critique. I have internally summarized it as "do not post comments after a night of heavy drinking." I trust this is in keeping with the spirit and overall theme of your follow-up.
Good points but why not just comment within the thread?
"... Good points but why not just comment within the thread? ..."
Read ... http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2008/05/summon-monsters-ope...
and specifically ...
"... When you build a system where you get points for the number of people who agree with you, you are building a popularity contest for ideas. However, your popularity contest for ideas will not be dominated by the people with the best ideas, but the people with the most time to spend on your web site. Votes appear to be free, like contribution is with Wikipedia, but in reality you have to register to vote, and you have to be there frequently for your votes to make much difference. So the votes aren't really free - they cost time. If you do the math, it's actually quite obvious that if your popularity contest for ideas inherently, by its structure, favors people who waste their own time, then your contest will produce winners which are actually losers. The most popular ideas will not be the best ideas, since the people who have the best ideas, and the ability to recognize them, also have better things to do and better places to be. ..."
Read ... http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2008/05/summon-monsters-ope...
and specifically ...
"... When you build a system where you get points for the number of people who agree with you, you are building a popularity contest for ideas. However, your popularity contest for ideas will not be dominated by the people with the best ideas, but the people with the most time to spend on your web site. Votes appear to be free, like contribution is with Wikipedia, but in reality you have to register to vote, and you have to be there frequently for your votes to make much difference. So the votes aren't really free - they cost time. If you do the math, it's actually quite obvious that if your popularity contest for ideas inherently, by its structure, favors people who waste their own time, then your contest will produce winners which are actually losers. The most popular ideas will not be the best ideas, since the people who have the best ideas, and the ability to recognize them, also have better things to do and better places to be. ..."
The chance of an in-thread comment getting as much attention and forty-or-so replies is a lot lower.
The target audience is readers of Giles' blog, not readers of HN.
Spot on! Except for the hint of hacker news disdain.
PHP won because web designers now can be programmers too.
I don't care about algorithms, binary trees or what fuck. I can code a web page in a day and that pays the bills.
It could have been an echo, a print or a put, but it had to be simple for us, not scary as system.console.writeln()
Most of you will never understand, you all come from a C or Lisp background and can make a computer cry for sure. We don't care, we just want to spit HTML in shiny ways and 'echo' is all we need.
I don't care about algorithms, binary trees or what fuck. I can code a web page in a day and that pays the bills.
It could have been an echo, a print or a put, but it had to be simple for us, not scary as system.console.writeln()
Most of you will never understand, you all come from a C or Lisp background and can make a computer cry for sure. We don't care, we just want to spit HTML in shiny ways and 'echo' is all we need.
Indeed, there is design and then there is Design. There is architecture and there is Architecture. There is programming and there is Programming.
Anyone can write but not everyone can (or rightly wants to) Write.
This is nothing new. Pulp outsells literature and I'm sure people cry rivers over it. Does that mean pulp "wins"? By one measure, obviously. But they still won't teach it in school and noone will remember it when it's gone.
Anyone can write but not everyone can (or rightly wants to) Write.
This is nothing new. Pulp outsells literature and I'm sure people cry rivers over it. Does that mean pulp "wins"? By one measure, obviously. But they still won't teach it in school and noone will remember it when it's gone.
[T]hey still won't teach it in school and noone will remember it when it's gone.
Indeed, imagine a world in which English classes started with bawdy, violence filled plays written to entertain a mostly drunken and illiterate rabble. Then for the second unit, you could maybe read a serializations designed to sell magazines, whose author was paid by the word. Perhaps by the end of the year, you'd be ready for pop-lit writers who had to retcon their stories due to marketing considerations.
Ugh, what a pitiful and impoverished English curriculum it would be if transient crowd-pleasing drek like Shakespeare, Dickens, and Doyle were studied as literature.
Indeed, imagine a world in which English classes started with bawdy, violence filled plays written to entertain a mostly drunken and illiterate rabble. Then for the second unit, you could maybe read a serializations designed to sell magazines, whose author was paid by the word. Perhaps by the end of the year, you'd be ready for pop-lit writers who had to retcon their stories due to marketing considerations.
Ugh, what a pitiful and impoverished English curriculum it would be if transient crowd-pleasing drek like Shakespeare, Dickens, and Doyle were studied as literature.
I may have misstepped using the word pulp as it surely would be conflated with the genre. I was using it in a more general purpose way. I will (try) to refrain from that in the future.
Let me find another example which can't be confused with Shakespeare. The Beatles wrote music to be enjoyed by the masses, popular music if you will in much the same way Vanilla Ice did. I do assign one more value over the other simply for longevity of the it's presence in and impact on western culture. I will let you guess which one. There's a good reason I can assume which you will guess.
I hardly fault pulp (I tried) for aiming at culture. I am simply rating its aim and potency. What is PHP influencing? How are PHP developers going to advance programming? In 50 years will we be using it? Will there be 30 newer programming langauages that picked up the choice bits from PHP?
It probably doesn't matter and definitely not for programmers today but in conversations evaluating the success or failure of languages these topics will be prime.
Let me find another example which can't be confused with Shakespeare. The Beatles wrote music to be enjoyed by the masses, popular music if you will in much the same way Vanilla Ice did. I do assign one more value over the other simply for longevity of the it's presence in and impact on western culture. I will let you guess which one. There's a good reason I can assume which you will guess.
I hardly fault pulp (I tried) for aiming at culture. I am simply rating its aim and potency. What is PHP influencing? How are PHP developers going to advance programming? In 50 years will we be using it? Will there be 30 newer programming langauages that picked up the choice bits from PHP?
It probably doesn't matter and definitely not for programmers today but in conversations evaluating the success or failure of languages these topics will be prime.
There's a difference between pulp and Shakespeare.
Shakespeare's understanding (and manipulation) of the human condition is self-aware, with a wink and a nod.
Pulp, on the other hand, is typified by "Pregnant by the Millionaire." (A real book.) The author may have a certain level of self-loathing (doubt it), but these books are straight for all it's worth.
Shakespeare's understanding (and manipulation) of the human condition is self-aware, with a wink and a nod.
Pulp, on the other hand, is typified by "Pregnant by the Millionaire." (A real book.) The author may have a certain level of self-loathing (doubt it), but these books are straight for all it's worth.
There is no difference between 'pulp' and Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote for the crowds of his day. The difference you allude to is between 'good' and 'bad' writing, according to your personal preference.
'Pulp' refers to popularity, not literary merit.
'Pulp' refers to popularity, not literary merit.
'Pulp' refers to 'wood pulp', as in cheap and without much substance. Though you're right, judging something as objectively good is a generally hard thing to do, especially when what you are really trying to do is guess what people in 100 years will think of as good.
Pulp is a genre. One of the characteristics of the genre is that it is written to sell (rather than eg. to achieve litterary recognition or to explore the limits of language or whatever). But just because something is popular does not make it pulp.
Programming (arguably) is not an end it itself. Programs are written to be useful to people, who don't care what tools/languages were used to create what's useful to them. A website does not turn out useless if its backend is written in PHP rather than Ruby, just as a novel does not turn out less interesting/intelligent/whatever if it is typed on a cheap typewriter rather than some Mac Pro.
You are right. I would, though, argue that design, architecture, music or art are not ends in themselves. They are method and some method are more evolutionarily significant to culture measured over time. At least that's what it looks like.
You are right.
Also, this website needs more lifestyle, social and political topics.
Vote this up if you want to rename it Designer News.
Also, this website needs more lifestyle, social and political topics.
Vote this up if you want to rename it Designer News.
Or perhaps Insufficiently Veiled Sarcasm News.
Nope. There's lots of places for designer news. I visit them for that.
If you raise "designer issues" that have broad appeal to the somewhat geekier HN audience, they'll get addressed here - and probably with more explanation of arcane underlying issues... which is what I appreciate here.
The fact that this post could raise a coherent counterpoint to the issue is evidence enough of that.