The arguments in favor of PHP that I continue to hear run along the lines of "everybody's using it" or "it's not that bad if you know what you're doing" or "it's great because it's the Swiss Army knife of languages."
It's hard to argue with those sentiments. And I think the root of the argument stems from the diverging convictions of two distinctly different camps of hackers. There are grease monkeys who love tinkering and see value in a tried-and-true tool that works everywhere. And then there are the craftsmen who strive for elegant code and choose their tools carefully. (There's truth in both of those aspirations. Let's not get carried away in value judgements between the two camps.)
But hearing "PHP sucks but I like it" sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. There are some great aspects to PHP that other web stacks and frameworks could learn from. Yet there are some major flaws that actually get in the way of productivity. I hope we can keep the discussion constructive and learn from both camps in building the future of web programming.
I don't think you necessarily meant it as such but in this context it appears that you just referred to PHP developers as "grease monkeys" and other developers as "craftsman". One could misinterpret that as a highly offensive remark.
I think you're misinterpreting my use of "grease monkeys" in general as offensive. (I said not to project value judgements in my original comment. There are certainly developers who see "craftsmen" as aloof purists who look down on practical matters. It cuts both ways.)
Well... The Google tells me that "grease monkey" is a derogatory term for a mechanic. I don't think it is generally meant to describe someone that you think very highly of. The Google also tells me that "craftsman" is a person who is skilled in a particular craft or art. I think this is generally used as defined. The Google never lies.
Using the two together seems to imply we have "skilled people who care about elegant code and tool selection" and "mechanics that like to tinker". Like I said, I don't think that is how you meant it... but that is how it comes off to me. And I tried really hard not to project any value judgement.
The point of the analogy is to suppose that the primary goal of the PHP developer, as with a supposed typical repair mechanic, is to dive into the work and do what needs to be done to get to having a working site (or whatever project). I believe this is similar to the sentiment expressed by the adage "Real developers ship."
The "craftsman" approach in the analogy is presumed to be more deliberate in his work, placing more emphasis on ensuring that the highest quality work is assured, and comparatively less on the practical matter of ensuring that it delivers what is needed on a short turnaround. One aspect of this analogy that may be relevant to consider is that craftsmen are considered to produce high-quality furniture and other products, but those products are quite expensive compared to the products made in factories that most people (can afford to) buy.
In professional development, software developers are generally expected to balance these concerns. Produce the highest-quality product that it is practical to deliver within a reasonable time frame.
No doubt this analogy is still an oversimplification of what PHP developers (and other developers) are like, as virtually all analogies tend to be. But it isn't intended to be derogatory toward PHP developers -- or toward developers in general whose focus is on shipping a product and not producing the perfect architecture.
I guess in order to buy into the analogy you first must accept the premise that being a craftsman and using PHP are mutually exclusive. I do not accept this premise. But maybe we can just agree to disagree on that.
That's part of what I meant by calling it an oversimplification: all of any developer pool are not going to fit some description.
Does the analogy apply to enough of the PHP developer pool to have value? My guess would be yes, but if your experience dictates otherwise, I have no problem with that assertion.
It's hard to argue with those sentiments. And I think the root of the argument stems from the diverging convictions of two distinctly different camps of hackers. There are grease monkeys who love tinkering and see value in a tried-and-true tool that works everywhere. And then there are the craftsmen who strive for elegant code and choose their tools carefully. (There's truth in both of those aspirations. Let's not get carried away in value judgements between the two camps.)
But hearing "PHP sucks but I like it" sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. There are some great aspects to PHP that other web stacks and frameworks could learn from. Yet there are some major flaws that actually get in the way of productivity. I hope we can keep the discussion constructive and learn from both camps in building the future of web programming.