[thelist] Server hacked?

Jim Puls jim at nondifferentiable.com
Mon Jul 13 16:34:18 CDT 2009

On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:

> - Java (Spring, Struts, JavaServer Faces)
> - Perl (Catalyst, raw mod_perl)
> - Python (Django, Pylons, Zope, etc.)
> - Ruby (Rails, Merb, Sinatra)
> You can certainly write insecure code in any language, but any of
> these will give you a nicer development environment than PHP."
> You don't mention *better* languages, Jim, you mention _frameworks_  
> and
> (what I'd call) "helper packages" for other languages - an important
> distinction IMHO.

Java, Perl, Python, and Ruby are languages. They're all better  
languages than PHP. Sorry if I was equivocal.

> This argument can be extended to _include_ PHP, as there are some
> fantastic frameworks[1][2][3][4], any of which will give you a better
> development environment, more productive programming, and improved
> security - basically true for any good framework for any programming
> language (web or not).

Perhaps, though I hasten to point out that my personal convictions  
about PHP are only galvanized by my own professional experience using  
CakePHP. The phrase that comes to mind is "lipstick on a pig", though  
I suppose that's a little 2008 at this point; CakePHP in particular  
takes a bad situation and makes it worse.

> 3. In your last statement, Jim, you state:
> " ...I might rather point
> out that my posting was based entirely on my highly subjective
> opinions of using various environments over several years and that you
> should form your own opinions. Remember, you can do equivalent tasks
> with any equivalently powerful tools; you'd be best served trying them
> out for yourself and experiencing their relative differences  
> firsthand."
> Whch negates the point you tried to make earlier - that other  
> languages
> will  give you a "nicer development environment than PHP". I'm sorry,
> but I find it irritating when people make baseless, inflammatory
> statements and then try to walk away and place the burden of proof on
> others - that is intellectually dishonest.

Inflammatory? Certainly. Baseless? It's a statement of opinion.  
Nowhere did I try to pass off my opinion as fact; indeed, the entire  
point of that paragraph was to underscore how, as in all technology  
debates, your mileage may vary.

> Play language wars all you like, but for both of you, your argument is
> moot.

As is yours, if you think this is anything more than the latest rehash  
of the oldest argument on the Internet.

-> jp

More information about the thelist mailing list