subreddit stringclasses 7
values | author stringlengths 3 20 | id stringlengths 5 7 | content stringlengths 67 30.4k | score int64 0 140k |
|---|---|---|---|---|
lolphp | tdammers | cb7pyjs | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>This is something PHP more or less inherits directly from C, where the following is undefined as well:
int i = 1;
i = ++i + i++;
printf("%i\n", i);<|eor|><|sor|>The difference is that apparently in PHP the result is restricted to 4 or 5. In C, you don't just get an unspecified number, you get completely undefined behavior, i.e. according to the C standard the code is literally meaningless and any behavior is "correct".
So the code could:
* output 4
* output 5
* output "hello, world"
* run minesweeper
* crash
* delete random files
* make demons fly out of your nose
Optimizers will often assume that undefined behavior can't happen and therefore eliminate all code that could only lead to undefined behavior.
TL;DR: C compilers are in fact out to get you.<|eor|><|sor|>In that case, the WTF in the PHP case is probably that the possible implementations of undefined behavior are somewhat documented.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 12 |
lolphp | nikic | cb7prtt | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>This is something PHP more or less inherits directly from C, where the following is undefined as well:
int i = 1;
i = ++i + i++;
printf("%i\n", i);<|eor|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>No, that's not true. Parentheses do not introduce a sequence point.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 9 |
lolphp | smog_alado | cbi07a9 | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>Lots of people talk about how it's inherited from C, but for me, that's the lol here. I'm also sick of how many places in PHP the underlying C implementations get exposed.
The whole point of higher managed languages, is to get away from 'lower' languages like C. Otherwise I'd just use that instead. Plenty of other languages also add a rule, to prevent this from being ambiguous.<|eor|><|sor|>The thing that boggles me the most about this one is that it doesnt even seem like the sort of thing that would reasonably get exposed to C. Its not like they are using regular expressions and string replacement to compile PHP down to C and passing it over to gcc (is it???)<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | InconsiderateBastard | cb7u1qg | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|soopr|>Discussion on the php internals mailing list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/81125<|eoopr|><|sor|>Sara's got her work cut out for her. I feel bad that she is stuck fighting with people that clearly don't understand what undefined behavior is. <|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | djsumdog | cb7pru4 | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>This is something PHP more or less inherits directly from C, where the following is undefined as well:
int i = 1;
i = ++i + i++;
printf("%i\n", i);<|eor|><|sor|>Yep, same with stuff like:
a[i] = ++i;
Any time you assign something and modify it within the same statement, the results in C are totally dependent on that compiler's particular parse tree and the ANSI specs typically say the results are undefined. <|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | nikic | cb7pqv6 | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|soopr|>Discussion on the php internals mailing list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/81125<|eoopr|><|sor|>In particular quoting Sara's first post:
> If run [the code] right now, it will always produce the same value (4), but it isn't
*defined* to do so. What that means is that behavior is subject to change
without notice, warning, or justification. This is a somewhat harsh way of
saying "Don't write expressions with ambiguous evaluations, that's clowny."<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | mirhagk | cb7ugr5 | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>Wait, why would that output 5?
$b = ++$a; echo $b + $a++; --> 2 + 2 = 4
$b = $a++; echo ++$a + $b; --> 3 + 1 = 4<|eor|><|sor|>It could return 5 because it could choose to do the ++ after the assignment or before the assignment.
It could also choose to do the post-increment after the ++, and go right to left, making it equal 3. It can equal pretty much whatever it wants, because C cares about the compiler more than the programmer (to get super speed), and PHP designers don't know how compilers work.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | tdammers | cb7pznz | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>This is something PHP more or less inherits directly from C, where the following is undefined as well:
int i = 1;
i = ++i + i++;
printf("%i\n", i);<|eor|><|sor|>Yep, same with stuff like:
a[i] = ++i;
Any time you assign something and modify it within the same statement, the results in C are totally dependent on that compiler's particular parse tree and the ANSI specs typically say the results are undefined. <|eor|><|sor|>Yep. More specifically, the standard defines "sequence points"; anything between sequence points may be evaluated in any order the implementation sees fit, and the behavior of any code that relies on execution order within a sequence point is undefined.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | NotSantaAtAll | cb7ovhv | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|soopr|>Discussion on the php internals mailing list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/81125<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 5 |
lolphp | josefx | cbq5x8o | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>Lots of people talk about how it's inherited from C, but for me, that's the lol here. I'm also sick of how many places in PHP the underlying C implementations get exposed.
The whole point of higher managed languages, is to get away from 'lower' languages like C. Otherwise I'd just use that instead. Plenty of other languages also add a rule, to prevent this from being ambiguous.<|eor|><|sor|>Actually the joke is the comment: The undefined behaviour is unrelated to '+' and '++', it is caused by modifying an reading the same variable without a clear happens before relationship.
> Plenty of other languages also add a rule, to prevent this from being ambiguous.
That rule is unnecessary once you consider that any code written this way is unreadable and could be split into two or three lines of readable code. In other words: such code should not exist at all unless it is used to point out edge cases in the language grammar.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 5 |
lolphp | InconsiderateBastard | cb7u4h6 | <|sols|><|sot|>echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5<|eot|><|sol|>http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.precedence.php#example-114<|eol|><|sor|>Just for kicks, is 4 correct? The $i++ would return 2 to the equation before incrementing, right? <|eor|><|sor|>The behavior is undefined. Anything it outputs is correct.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 5 |
lolphp | hashkitten | jmi7ng | <|sols|><|sot|>Syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')'<|eot|><|sol|>https://tio.run/##K8go@P/fxr4go0AhLb9Iw9rQ3k7z/38A<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 52 |
lolphp | barubary | gavj1by | <|sols|><|sot|>Syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')'<|eot|><|sol|>https://tio.run/##K8go@P/fxr4go0AhLb9Iw9rQ3k7z/38A<|eol|><|sor|>> <?php for(;1?>)
PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')'
That's a fun one. Not only does the error message contradict itself, it's also wrong in general. Watch what happens if you actually give it the `)` it's asking for:
> <?php for(;1)?>asdf
PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ';'<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 18 |
lolphp | Miserable_Fuck | gaxeoi3 | <|sols|><|sot|>Syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')'<|eot|><|sol|>https://tio.run/##K8go@P/fxr4go0AhLb9Iw9rQ3k7z/38A<|eol|><|sor|>Did you file a bug report?<|eor|><|sor|>the real lolphp is always in the comments<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
lolphp | modestlife | gaxwahr | <|sols|><|sot|>Syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')'<|eot|><|sol|>https://tio.run/##K8go@P/fxr4go0AhLb9Iw9rQ3k7z/38A<|eol|><|sor|>The first `)` in your error message is parsed by PHP as T_INLINE_HTML because `?>` ends a PHP part (`<?php ... ?>`) within the file.
<?php for(;1?>)
PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')' in /home/runner/.code.tio on line 1
<?php for(;1?>foo
PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected 'foo', expecting ')' in /home/runner/.code.tio on line 1<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | HenkPoley | gavhnvc | <|sols|><|sot|>Syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting ')'<|eot|><|sol|>https://tio.run/##K8go@P/fxr4go0AhLb9Iw9rQ3k7z/38A<|eol|><|sor|>Is that a valid syntax in PHP?<|eor|><|sor|>No, basically it says `for(;1`, with some noise around it.
Btw, link for Apollo (also confused) https://tio.run/##K8go@P/fxr4go0AhLb9Iw9rQ3k7z/38A
The PHP 8 error additionally says it unexpectedly encountered a T_INLINE_HTML (html token), e.g. instead of more PHP tokens.
https://3v4l.org/DH5bn<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | maweki | 9mpzwb | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 52 |
lolphp | maweki | e7geedv | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|soopr|>The first comment is pure gold.
> I think the way it works now is fine: Foo could be *mostly defined except the interface*, there was no other problem with it, and PHP was quite happy to raise an exception which you totally ignored. **At least this way the code has a chance of working.**<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 47 |
lolphp | b1ackcat | e7gkmhz | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|soopr|>The first comment is pure gold.
> I think the way it works now is fine: Foo could be *mostly defined except the interface*, there was no other problem with it, and PHP was quite happy to raise an exception which you totally ignored. **At least this way the code has a chance of working.**<|eoopr|><|sor|>That sentence is pretty much the mantra of how this whole shitty language was designed, it feels like.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 38 |
lolphp | cleeder | e7guhqc | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|soopr|>The first comment is pure gold.
> I think the way it works now is fine: Foo could be *mostly defined except the interface*, there was no other problem with it, and PHP was quite happy to raise an exception which you totally ignored. **At least this way the code has a chance of working.**<|eoopr|><|sor|>> At least this way the code has a chance of working.
_Oh, goodie. /s_<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 15 |
lolphp | vita10gy | e7ifdtw | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|soopr|>The first comment is pure gold.
> I think the way it works now is fine: Foo could be *mostly defined except the interface*, there was no other problem with it, and PHP was quite happy to raise an exception which you totally ignored. **At least this way the code has a chance of working.**<|eoopr|><|sor|>At least the conversation takes a hard right from there. I was fully expecting the "I agree, non issue" [Status: wontfix]
PHP has been fundamentally confusing "not erroring" and "working" since conception.
Errors are good things when they are things we should fix. Definitely preferable to barreling on in some nonsense state of being.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 9 |
lolphp | dotancohen | e7li141 | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>PHP classes are instantiated every time a PHP script runs, so there's not really a distinction between static initialization failures and dynamic execution failures. People take advantage of this in a whole bunch of elaborate ways, like loading arbitrary scripts as plugins for a core CMS, installing scripts to a running webserver via an admin interface, etc.
In that context it makes sense that loading a class is a recoverable error in PHP. For example, an admin installing code into a shared Wordpress installation should not be able to irreparably hose their entire website because some class definition in the PHP script they uploaded couldn't be instantiated.
There is definitely a lolphp here in that partially instantiated classes are a major footgun waiting to happen, but insisting that loading code in PHP should be an unrecoverable total program failure is a bad idea.<|eor|><|sor|>> an admin installing code into a shared Wordpress installation should not be
> able to irreparably hose their entire website because some class definition in
> the PHP script they uploaded couldn't be instantiated.
The proper fix for that use case is to have the code loading the plugin wrapped in a `try` statement.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | pilif | e7i2dtv | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|sor|>And as always, there's /u/nikic as the voice of reason. <3<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | SirClueless | e7i2n2m | <|sols|><|sot|>Class autoloader throws an exception: the class is ... partially loaded<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76980<|eol|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>PHP classes are instantiated every time a PHP script runs, so there's not really a distinction between static initialization failures and dynamic execution failures. People take advantage of this in a whole bunch of elaborate ways, like loading arbitrary scripts as plugins for a core CMS, installing scripts to a running webserver via an admin interface, etc.
In that context it makes sense that loading a class is a recoverable error in PHP. For example, an admin installing code into a shared Wordpress installation should not be able to irreparably hose their entire website because some class definition in the PHP script they uploaded couldn't be instantiated.
There is definitely a lolphp here in that partially instantiated classes are a major footgun waiting to happen, but insisting that loading code in PHP should be an unrecoverable total program failure is a bad idea.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | TheBuzzSaw | 9feh0h | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 50 |
lolphp | maweki | e5whwpa | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|sor|>And immediately added a somewhat sane type system.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 27 |
lolphp | mrexodia | e5wa242 | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 21 |
lolphp | jesseschalken | e5wacb0 | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>IIRC the whole conversion of their codebase to partially typed Hack was finished in 2014, and anybody who has said "Facebook uses PHP" since then has been wrong.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
lolphp | redwall_hp | e5x6505 | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|sor|>Because what would be the alternative in 2004?
All backend webdev was utter shit back then. Note that it was before Spring or Rails.
Anyhow, making a tech choice based on a tech choice 14 years ago is not a smart decision. If Zuckerberg did the same, he'd pick the top web technology from 1990, which is writing your web server from scratch in C with inline assembly.<|eor|><|sor|>Java. It was fucking huge, and still is outside of the California bubble. Hack and HHVM are basically trying to reinvent Java anyway.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
lolphp | vytah | e5wwb17 | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|sor|>Because what would be the alternative in 2004?
All backend webdev was utter shit back then. Note that it was before Spring or Rails.
Anyhow, making a tech choice based on a tech choice 14 years ago is not a smart decision. If Zuckerberg did the same, he'd pick the top web technology from 1990, which is writing your web server from scratch in C with inline assembly.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 11 |
lolphp | BooCMB | e7kmnry | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Now that HHVM doesnt have performance advantage over PHP7, what other avenues for growth are there, other than focusing on extended syntax?
The project is obsolete otherwise, so makes sense.<|eor|><|sor|>Hey, Trevor\_GoodchiId, just a quick heads-up:
**sence** is actually spelled **sense**. You can remember it by **ends with -se**.
Have a nice day!
^^^^The ^^^^parent ^^^^commenter ^^^^can ^^^^reply ^^^^with ^^^^'delete' ^^^^to ^^^^delete ^^^^this ^^^^comment.<|eor|><|sor|>Hey CommonMisspellingBot, just a quick heads up:
Your spelling hints are really shitty because they're all essentially "remember the fucking spelling of the fucking word".
You're useless.
Have a nice day!<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 11 |
lolphp | mellett68 | e5wdvym | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Oh shit, hack is still going<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 10 |
lolphp | squiggleslash | e5y2csw | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|sor|>Because what would be the alternative in 2004?
All backend webdev was utter shit back then. Note that it was before Spring or Rails.
Anyhow, making a tech choice based on a tech choice 14 years ago is not a smart decision. If Zuckerberg did the same, he'd pick the top web technology from 1990, which is writing your web server from scratch in C with inline assembly.<|eor|><|sor|>Java. It was fucking huge, and still is outside of the California bubble. Hack and HHVM are basically trying to reinvent Java anyway.<|eor|><|sor|>Plus Python and Perl were widely used at that point for building websites. (And for those complaining that Java only had JSP back then, it's not as if Facebook was built using an off-the-shelf PHP "framework". Although come to think of it, I've never tried visiting [facebook.com/wp-admin](https://facebook.com/wp-admin) ;-)
​<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 10 |
lolphp | vytah | e5x7ugz | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|sor|>Because what would be the alternative in 2004?
All backend webdev was utter shit back then. Note that it was before Spring or Rails.
Anyhow, making a tech choice based on a tech choice 14 years ago is not a smart decision. If Zuckerberg did the same, he'd pick the top web technology from 1990, which is writing your web server from scratch in C with inline assembly.<|eor|><|sor|>Java. It was fucking huge, and still is outside of the California bubble. Hack and HHVM are basically trying to reinvent Java anyway.<|eor|><|sor|>Webdev in Java in 2004 was also shit. Remember, no Spring, no JSF. You had to choose between JSP and Struts (and some other less popular things).
<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 9 |
lolphp | TorbenKoehn | e6g2jkb | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook used PHP to become as big as it is?<|eor|><|sor|>And immediately added a somewhat sane type system.<|eor|><|sor|>Well, PHP is getting a sane type-system version by version right now, too.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | Hathery | e5x181s | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>From the outside looking in, the most interesting part of the post is the note about their new release cadence:
> As we expect the language to evolve rapidly, we strongly recommend using the regular releases instead of the LTS releases for large projects; while this does mean you need to upgrade more often, both us and our users have found that it is generally easier to catch up on 2 months worth of changes 3 times as often than 6 months of changes in one go. We will also be re-evaluating the length of our release cycle; one possibility is that we will move to releases every 4 weeks, with these releases being supported for 6-8 weeks.
That cycle will work for FB where they are constantly iterating and also have early insight as to where the language is going before they get there but for anyone on the outside or for slower moving projects, that cadence seems fairly punishing.
Is that a big change from how they release now?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | wafflePower1 | e6b0iur | <|sols|><|sot|>Sooo can we stop saying "Facebook uses PHP" yet?<|eot|><|sol|>https://hhvm.com/blog/2018/09/12/end-of-php-support-future-of-hack.html<|eol|><|sor|>Facebook chose PHP and in the end reinvented Java. 10/10 would read the story again<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 5 |
lolphp | bwoebi | 76vg5a | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 55 |
lolphp | John2143658709 | dohc6e5 | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>On today's episode of "Is it a javascript feature or a php bug"...<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 33 |
lolphp | Grimy_ | dohgohp | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>But wait, [it gets better](https://3v4l.org/tqE64)!<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 22 |
lolphp | bwoebi | dohjb5u | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>who would do that? you just got your types wrong and want to blame PHP<|eor|><|soopr|>I am blaming PHP for not properly yelling at me here (I expect an Error: unsupported operand types)<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
lolphp | bwoebi | doheljg | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>On today's episode of "Is it a javascript feature or a php bug"...<|eor|><|soopr|>Well, in Javascript `[] - []` will work perfectly though. So, either way, it's inconsistent in PHP.<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 15 |
lolphp | bj_christianson | doi31ya | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>who would do that? you just got your types wrong and want to blame PHP<|eor|><|soopr|>I am blaming PHP for not properly yelling at me here (I expect an Error: unsupported operand types)<|eoopr|><|sor|>FTFY:
I am blaming a language with dynamic typing for doing dynamic typing.
<|eor|><|soopr|>I'm fine with dynamic typing between scalars, but there's no point in dynamic typing with complex types.<|eoopr|><|sor|>Its the inconsistency, too. `**` triggers coercion to a number, but not `-`.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 9 |
lolphp | jfb1337 | doi11m3 | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>who would do that? you just got your types wrong and want to blame PHP<|eor|><|soopr|>I am blaming PHP for not properly yelling at me here (I expect an Error: unsupported operand types)<|eoopr|><|sor|>FTFY:
I am blaming a language with dynamic typing for doing dynamic typing.
<|eor|><|sor|>*weak typing FTFY<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | bwoebi | doi0653 | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>who would do that? you just got your types wrong and want to blame PHP<|eor|><|soopr|>I am blaming PHP for not properly yelling at me here (I expect an Error: unsupported operand types)<|eoopr|><|sor|>FTFY:
I am blaming a language with dynamic typing for doing dynamic typing.
<|eor|><|soopr|>I'm fine with dynamic typing between scalars, but there's no point in dynamic typing with complex types.<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | carlos_vini | dohx6l9 | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>who would do that? you just got your types wrong and want to blame PHP<|eor|><|soopr|>I am blaming PHP for not properly yelling at me here (I expect an Error: unsupported operand types)<|eoopr|><|sor|>with that I can agree. Try it in JS though:
* [] - [] = 0
* [] + [] = ""
* [] * [] = 0
* [] / [] = NaN
And...
* {} + [] = 0
* [] + {} = "[object Object]"<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | Pesthuf | dolp463 | <|sols|><|sot|>[] ** [] === 0 (but e.g. [] - [] will fail)<|eot|><|sol|>https://3v4l.org/i06FN<|eol|><|sor|>Will this be the birth of PHFuck?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | ProjectAmmeh | 2zsuqj | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 50 |
lolphp | barubary | cpm117f | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|sor|>> almost all
( )<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 45 |
lolphp | suspiciously_calm | cpmi4zh | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>> If you see such a URL in your website logs, it may be because someone is trying to determine if your server is running PHP and attempting to discover weaknesses in your system.
Or they're just trying to see the funny easter eggs. Plausible deniability built-in!<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 35 |
lolphp | ProjectAmmeh | cplzd9n | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|soopr|>>ELEPHANT PHP LOGO:
>PHP Version 5.3.0 - current
Also, the issue with these is that they allow easy PHP version identification for an attacker. Even if they took them out now, that'd only add another data point.<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 26 |
lolphp | gu3st12 | cplz2ew | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 25 |
lolphp | merreborn | cpm6iuk | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|soopr|>>ELEPHANT PHP LOGO:
>PHP Version 5.3.0 - current
Also, the issue with these is that they allow easy PHP version identification for an attacker. Even if they took them out now, that'd only add another data point.<|eoopr|><|sor|>http://php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.expose-php
Removed in PHP 5.5.0 in 2013.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 19 |
lolphp | captainramen | cpnxoqg | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|sor|>Just because *almost* all of them may now be removed doesn't mean its not an lol that these were present in PHP in the first place. The fact that these were put in there at all reflects on the quality / culture of PHP, and is funny to everyone except PHP users.
Not to mention that these things remained in there for decades and weren't removed. And there are still sites out there using these php versions.<|eor|><|sor|>> And there are still sites out there using these php versions.
The majority in fact<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 12 |
lolphp | cite-reader | cpo4jew | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>Aww a ruby dev! How does it feel to use a toy language?<|eor|><|sor|>How does it feel using personal homepage?<|eor|><|sor|>Like sadness and an endless spiral of terrible ideas as you watch with listless helplessness as Internals gradually tries to import features from other, better languages without actually understanding why they're designed that way or how to implement them well, and then you remember that the company that signs your paychecks has been planning to upgrade PHP "real soon now" for *months* so you'll never get to use even the shadow of a good idea anyway.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | edave64 | cpru73f | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>Aww a ruby dev! How does it feel to use a toy language?<|eor|><|sor|>Why do you consider Ruby a toy language? <|eor|><|sor|>Because it doesn't cause trauma ;)<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | Sandbucketman | cplzh5r | <|sols|><|sot|>PHP Easter Eggs - Because server software needs easter eggs too!<|eot|><|sol|>http://www.0php.com/php_easter_egg.php<|eol|><|sor|>... Except almost all of these have been removed in newer versions of PHP.
Yet another quality shitpost bashing PHP for things that aren't a problem. <|eor|><|sor|>It's great when people experiment or find things by accident that really are worth a laugh because of poor or outdated design.
It's not so great when people are desperately scrounging for anything that could be perceived negative just so they can start wanking over how bad php is.
We need a subreddit where we start bashing posts that are designed more poorly than PHP, there's plenty of those here now.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 5 |
lolphp | pitiless | 2sxic4 | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 50 |
lolphp | barubary | cntt4ky | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>>
<?php
$foo = new IntlGregorianCalendar(new StdClass);
//Output: Catchable fatal error: Object of class stdClass could not be converted to string in..
?>
> Despite the word catchable, this is not actually an exception that is
catchable, it is an error.
What.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 38 |
lolphp | greyphilosopher | cntwb5s | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>C's memory allocation functions return NULL on failure. C++'s are supposed to throw, but given how many people compile without exceptions, it's always worth remembering that they *might* return 0 instead.
Although honestly I've never worked on a codebase where out-of-memory was considered a recoverable error - it's usually pretty damn fatal.<|eor|><|sor|>>C's memory allocation functions return NULL on failure.
That's because C DOESN'T HAVE EXCEPTIONS.
When C does something, it's usually an example of what you shouldn't do in a modern language.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 26 |
lolphp | barubary | cnu0uil | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>link to where he gets told this is a feature not a bug?<|eor|><|sor|>Not quite: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93549<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 21 |
lolphp | cythrawll | cnu7dsb | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>>
<?php
$foo = new IntlGregorianCalendar(new StdClass);
//Output: Catchable fatal error: Object of class stdClass could not be converted to string in..
?>
> Despite the word catchable, this is not actually an exception that is
catchable, it is an error.
What.<|eor|><|sor|>http://docs.php.net/manual/en/function.set-error-handler.php
Long before PHP had exceptions, it had errors as it's main source of error handling. Catchable fatal errors are able to be handled by set_error_handler allowing the programmer to decide whether it comes back with the engine in a clean state.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 18 |
lolphp | ZorbaTHut | cntsaz4 | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>C's memory allocation functions return NULL on failure. C++'s are supposed to throw, but given how many people compile without exceptions, it's always worth remembering that they *might* return 0 instead.
Although honestly I've never worked on a codebase where out-of-memory was considered a recoverable error - it's usually pretty damn fatal.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
lolphp | barubary | cntt2tp | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>C's memory allocation functions return NULL on failure. C++'s are supposed to throw, but given how many people compile without exceptions, it's always worth remembering that they *might* return 0 instead.
Although honestly I've never worked on a codebase where out-of-memory was considered a recoverable error - it's usually pretty damn fatal.<|eor|><|sor|>PHP's `new` doesn't allocate memory, though. (PHP implicitly allocates memory all over the place.) `new` just initializes objects.
Hmm, I wonder if you can get `array()` to return null.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 14 |
lolphp | greyphilosopher | cntwecb | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>link to where he gets told this is a feature not a bug?<|eor|><|sor|>This. It's the community of developers that cause PHP to be so bad.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
lolphp | Rainfly_X | cnudhii | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>link to where he gets told this is a feature not a bug?<|eor|><|sor|>Not quite: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93549<|eor|><|sor|>Oh my god.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | HildartheDorf | cnu7fqp | <|sols|><|sot|>'new' keyword returning null - only in PHP<|eot|><|sol|>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/93547<|eol|><|sor|>C's memory allocation functions return NULL on failure. C++'s are supposed to throw, but given how many people compile without exceptions, it's always worth remembering that they *might* return 0 instead.
Although honestly I've never worked on a codebase where out-of-memory was considered a recoverable error - it's usually pretty damn fatal.<|eor|><|sor|>Compiling C++ without exceptions then calling (throwing) new is undefined behaviour (hell, just compiling without exceptions is technically undefined behaviour). You have to explicity request "return null on failure".<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | vytah | 27rvrf | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 52 |
lolphp | Banane9 | ci3rqsl | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>How does that even happen?
Also : Notice how nobody cared, *for four months*.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 26 |
lolphp | DoctorWaluigiTime | ci3s3lm | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Meh, bugs happen.<|eor|><|sor|>Nice try, PHP team.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 25 |
lolphp | thedarkhaze | ci3xcxn | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Honest question: PHP development... do they even have regression tests? How does this stuff even get *merged* let alone released?<|eor|><|sor|>They have tests they just fail
http://gcov.php.net/viewer.php?version=PHP_5_6<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 18 |
lolphp | Drainedsoul | ci4181d | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>I'm surprised they didn't just update the manual and announce that it works as intended.<|eor|><|sor|>Well it'd make sense, someone might be relying on this behaviour to implement an infinite loop. <|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
lolphp | ajmarks | ci3wojc | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>I'm surprised they didn't just update the manual and announce that it works as intended.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 14 |
lolphp | shillbert | ci3zqwc | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Honest question: PHP development... do they even have regression tests? How does this stuff even get *merged* let alone released?<|eor|><|sor|>They have tests they just fail
http://gcov.php.net/viewer.php?version=PHP_5_6<|eor|><|sor|>>Expected Test Failures: 40
>Expected
Oh deer lord<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 14 |
lolphp | merreborn | ci4178u | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Meh, bugs happen.<|eor|><|sor|>I'm sorry, but this is such a lame fucking excuse. On one hand you have a bug in a business application - maybe it costs $1,000 or even $10,000 to fix, a drop in the bucket for some places. Then you have a bug in a space probe. Billions of dollars gone and 30 years to wait for the next launch window.
Some kinds of failures are acceptable. Language design is not one of them.<|eor|><|sor|>Dear god, I hope there aren't any space probes running php<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
lolphp | ajmarks | ci41bh2 | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>I'm surprised they didn't just update the manual and announce that it works as intended.<|eor|><|sor|>Well it'd make sense, someone might be relying on this behaviour to implement an infinite loop. <|eor|><|sor|>You know, I've been looking for a way to implement `while (1)` without the annoyance of `break` and `continue`.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 11 |
lolphp | Trig90 | ci3uu0h | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>How does that even happen?
Also : Notice how nobody cared, *for four months*.<|eor|><|sor|>Nobody uses finally /sarcasm<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 9 |
lolphp | ElusiveGuy | ci4dxxw | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Meh, bugs happen.<|eor|><|sor|>I'm sorry, but this is such a lame fucking excuse. On one hand you have a bug in a business application - maybe it costs $1,000 or even $10,000 to fix, a drop in the bucket for some places. Then you have a bug in a space probe. Billions of dollars gone and 30 years to wait for the next launch window.
Some kinds of failures are acceptable. Language design is not one of them.<|eor|><|sor|>Dear god, I hope there aren't any space probes running php<|eor|><|sor|>I remember interviewing for a job sometime back in 2001, and they said one of their side projects was working on PHP code that would run on one of the Mars Rovers. No joke.<|eor|><|sor|>Depends on your definition of "run", I suppose.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 9 |
lolphp | michaelpb | ci3uyju | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Honest question: PHP development... do they even have regression tests? How does this stuff even get *merged* let alone released?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | Banane9 | ci3yvd8 | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Honest question: PHP development... do they even have regression tests? How does this stuff even get *merged* let alone released?<|eor|><|sor|>They have tests they just fail
http://gcov.php.net/viewer.php?version=PHP_5_6<|eor|><|sor|>Holy! 104 test failures ... With just 0.3% code coverage of all the tests.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | captainramen | ci41nwi | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Meh, bugs happen.<|eor|><|sor|>I'm sorry, but this is such a lame fucking excuse. On one hand you have a bug in a business application - maybe it costs $1,000 or even $10,000 to fix, a drop in the bucket for some places. Then you have a bug in a space probe. Billions of dollars gone and 30 years to wait for the next launch window.
Some kinds of failures are acceptable. Language design is not one of them.<|eor|><|sor|>Dear god, I hope there aren't any space probes running php<|eor|><|sor|>I remember interviewing for a job sometime back in 2001, and they said one of their side projects was working on PHP code that would run on one of the Mars Rovers. No joke.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | captainramen | ci3za5c | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Meh, bugs happen.<|eor|><|sor|>I'm sorry, but this is such a lame fucking excuse. On one hand you have a bug in a business application - maybe it costs $1,000 or even $10,000 to fix, a drop in the bucket for some places. Then you have a bug in a space probe. Billions of dollars gone and 30 years to wait for the next launch window.
Some kinds of failures are acceptable. Language design is not one of them.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | iconoklast | ci4b1sx | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>How does that even happen?
Also : Notice how nobody cared, *for four months*.<|eor|><|sor|>Nobody uses finally /sarcasm<|eor|><|sor|>It probably actually is true that not many use a try/finally inside another try/finally.<|eor|><|sor|>Yeah, nesting try/finally is a strong indication that your function is doing too many things and should be decomposed. Not that I'm excusing this sort of silliness.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | vytah | ci8h8kb | <|sols|><|sot|>In case of nested finally blocks, the outer block loops forever<|eot|><|sol|>https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66608<|eol|><|sor|>Honest question: PHP development... do they even have regression tests? How does this stuff even get *merged* let alone released?<|eor|><|sor|>They have tests they just fail
http://gcov.php.net/viewer.php?version=PHP_5_6<|eor|><|sor|>Holy! 104 test failures ... With just 0.3% code coverage of all the tests.<|eor|><|soopr|>It's like someone noticed that and said: "Guys, I think we should stop writing tests, they all fail anyway."<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | midir | 20eisu | <|soss|><|sot|>Array errors<|eot|><|sost|> error_reporting(-1); // show all possible errors
$obj = new stdclass();
$arr = array();
var_dump($arr['foo']); // Notice: Undefined index
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // Warning: Illegal offset type
$arr = null;
var_dump($arr['foo']); // No error
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i'] = $arr['i'] + 1; // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i']++; // Notice: Undefined index
(Tested with 5.5.5.)<|eost|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 50 |
lolphp | lisp-case | cg2l9xe | <|soss|><|sot|>Array errors<|eot|><|sost|> error_reporting(-1); // show all possible errors
$obj = new stdclass();
$arr = array();
var_dump($arr['foo']); // Notice: Undefined index
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // Warning: Illegal offset type
$arr = null;
var_dump($arr['foo']); // No error
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i'] = $arr['i'] + 1; // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i']++; // Notice: Undefined index
(Tested with 5.5.5.)<|eost|><|sor|>
You know, normally I can explain PHP's behavior. I can usually see *some* strange, misguided thought process that would have made whatever weird thing it's doing seem like a good idea.
This? I have no idea what this is. I give up.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 36 |
lolphp | InconsiderateBastard | cg2vmqs | <|soss|><|sot|>Array errors<|eot|><|sost|> error_reporting(-1); // show all possible errors
$obj = new stdclass();
$arr = array();
var_dump($arr['foo']); // Notice: Undefined index
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // Warning: Illegal offset type
$arr = null;
var_dump($arr['foo']); // No error
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i'] = $arr['i'] + 1; // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i']++; // Notice: Undefined index
(Tested with 5.5.5.)<|eost|><|sor|>I'm a fan of:
$test = "test";
$obj = new stdclass();
var_dump($test[$obj]);
It spits out an illegal offset, a notice that $obj can't be converted into an integer, and string(1) "e".
So it's an illegal offset, but it still uses it as an offset. It can't convert it to an int, but it converts it to 1.
Edit: It won't end up accessing the value at index 1 if its an array the way it does for a string.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
lolphp | suspiciously_calm | cg2m87j | <|soss|><|sot|>Array errors<|eot|><|sost|> error_reporting(-1); // show all possible errors
$obj = new stdclass();
$arr = array();
var_dump($arr['foo']); // Notice: Undefined index
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // Warning: Illegal offset type
$arr = null;
var_dump($arr['foo']); // No error
var_dump($arr[$obj]); // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i'] = $arr['i'] + 1; // No error
$arr = null;
$arr['i']++; // Notice: Undefined index
(Tested with 5.5.5.)<|eost|><|sor|>Cool you figured out that $i++ is not the same as $i = $i + 1;<|eor|><|sor|>Yes, because what operator is applied to the result of an array element reference should determine whether or not the element can be referenced in the first place ....<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | catcradle5 | 1z2kep | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 54 |
lolphp | ma-int | cfpy2v2 | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>So the top 5 US websites are:
* google.com
* facebook.com
* youtube.com
* yahoo.com
* amazon.com
We can cross out Facebook because they obviously use PHP. Youtube is long enough part of Google that we can assume this is one company. So we must choose between:
* Google
* Yahoo
* Amazon
Yahoo [seems to use PHP](https://tas-yahoo.taleo.net/careersection/yahoo_global_cs/jobsearch.ftl) and since you mention the fact that it is in top 15 Worldwide and top 5 US my bet is on **Amazon**.
But good for them! I can understand the decision.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 43 |
lolphp | Serialk | cfq0itk | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>So the top 5 US websites are:
* google.com
* facebook.com
* youtube.com
* yahoo.com
* amazon.com
We can cross out Facebook because they obviously use PHP. Youtube is long enough part of Google that we can assume this is one company. So we must choose between:
* Google
* Yahoo
* Amazon
Yahoo [seems to use PHP](https://tas-yahoo.taleo.net/careersection/yahoo_global_cs/jobsearch.ftl) and since you mention the fact that it is in top 15 Worldwide and top 5 US my bet is on **Amazon**.
But good for them! I can understand the decision.<|eor|><|sor|>I'll go for Amazon too, but I don't think Google would be that happy if you began to add some PHP to their codebase.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
lolphp | MonadicTraversal | cfq7cev | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>> that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like.
This seems like a really good way to have an unmaintainable codebase.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
lolphp | merreborn | cfqcu5p | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>> that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like.
This seems like a really good way to have an unmaintainable codebase.<|eor|><|sor|>Definitely wouldn't fly in a small shop (<10 developers).
But anything in the alexa top 5 US is probably has thousands of engineers, so finding someone who can work in an arbitrary language probably isn't a problem.
Although, even though it's company policy to allow any language, I'm sure your team/superiors will have something to say if you start developing in brainfuck or something.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 15 |
lolphp | cfreak2399 | cfq9cl9 | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>We have a similar rule, except the banned language is Perl. I'd rather maintain PHP code any day, and we can't really get away from PHP anyways because it's the primary application language. When you started a website in the early-to-mid-aughts, PHP was realistically your best bet.<|eor|><|sor|>Sounds like a company to avoid. Perl is widely used in ETL type applications because its so good at text processing and string manipulation. It's not that hard to write good Perl code. Like any language you can abuse it, so you require the developers to follow a style guide. Problem solved as the language itself is reasonably consistent.
PHP on the other hand is known for inconsistency, bad programming practice out of the box and security concerns. The "it sucks but everyone else uses it, so should we" mentality has kept a lot of awful software afloat so i guess PHP has that going for it.
<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
lolphp | jsanc623 | cfq0khd | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>So the top 5 US websites are:
* google.com
* facebook.com
* youtube.com
* yahoo.com
* amazon.com
We can cross out Facebook because they obviously use PHP. Youtube is long enough part of Google that we can assume this is one company. So we must choose between:
* Google
* Yahoo
* Amazon
Yahoo [seems to use PHP](https://tas-yahoo.taleo.net/careersection/yahoo_global_cs/jobsearch.ftl) and since you mention the fact that it is in top 15 Worldwide and top 5 US my bet is on **Amazon**.
But good for them! I can understand the decision.<|eor|><|sor|>I'll go for Amazon too, but I don't think Google would be that happy if you began to add some PHP to their codebase.<|eor|><|sor|>http://www.quora.com/PHP-programming-language-1/Does-Google-use-PHP-for-any-of-their-products?share=1<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
lolphp | Sarcastinator | cfrmx0s | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>> that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like.
This seems like a really good way to have an unmaintainable codebase.<|eor|><|sor|>Definitely wouldn't fly in a small shop (<10 developers).
But anything in the alexa top 5 US is probably has thousands of engineers, so finding someone who can work in an arbitrary language probably isn't a problem.
Although, even though it's company policy to allow any language, I'm sure your team/superiors will have something to say if you start developing in brainfuck or something.<|eor|><|sor|>We had a project written in Ruby, and when the ruby guy went there were no one to replace him which meant any updates to the software would take ten times longer to complete which made the customer...less satisfied. Now there is implemented a "work using the tools we have invested in" policy with exceptions only for internal tools and research.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | xiongchiamiov | cfqk513 | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>We have a similar rule, except the banned language is Perl. I'd rather maintain PHP code any day, and we can't really get away from PHP anyways because it's the primary application language. When you started a website in the early-to-mid-aughts, PHP was realistically your best bet.<|eor|><|sor|>Sounds like a company to avoid. Perl is widely used in ETL type applications because its so good at text processing and string manipulation. It's not that hard to write good Perl code. Like any language you can abuse it, so you require the developers to follow a style guide. Problem solved as the language itself is reasonably consistent.
PHP on the other hand is known for inconsistency, bad programming practice out of the box and security concerns. The "it sucks but everyone else uses it, so should we" mentality has kept a lot of awful software afloat so i guess PHP has that going for it.
<|eor|><|sor|>> Perl is widely used in ETL type applications because its so good at text processing and string manipulation.
And Ruby is just as good (arguably better!) without as much crazy.
> It's not that hard to write good Perl code.
That debatable, but it's certainly very *easy* to write **bad** Perl. Perl got rather popular before getting the warts out (I would argue that's not happening until Perl 6, but let's be nice and say Perl 5 is fine (disregarding the insane object system, the array flattening, and the wide variety of implicit variables)), and as such, the Internet and bookstores are chock full of bad advice. It will take years of constant "read Modern Perl!" posts before this starts to change.
This, of course, is not a problem unique to Perl. PHP is the other notable example, but as I said, when you have hundreds of thousands of lines of PHP, you can't exactly stop using it. If I was working on a fresh project, I'd argue against ever using PHP as well.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
lolphp | n1c0_ds | cfq0mtd | <|soss|><|sot|>A top tech company I recently interviewed for told me<|eot|><|sost|>that all employees were free, and even encouraged, to write code and personal scripts in whatever language they like. They had a totally open ecosystem and listed all the team members who were experts in X language. Java, Python, Scala, Ruby, C++, Haskell; the list went on.
At the end of his cheerful praise for the company, though, the interviewer looked at me sternly and said: "however, there is one exception. Absolutely no PHP allowed."
He went on to explain why PHP simply was not worth the trouble, from a security, development, and maintenance perspective. I smiled and nodded in great agreement.
The next interviewer also extolled the open culture of the company, ending with "you're free to use any language you like, other than PHP!" Apparently it was an official company policy, and has been for years.
It was a pleasant surprise. The company is in the Alexa top 15 (top 5 for US) and is extremely well-known, too.
Anyone else have similiar experiences with companies they've worked at? Or perhaps exact opposite experiences?<|eost|><|sor|>Depends on what you are building. Here, we use PHP because it's stupid easy to find interns to maintain the project, and because IT won't give use real server space.
On the other hand, the application was built by 9 consecutive Mech E. interns. It was a total mess.<|eor|><|eoss|><|endoftext|> | 5 |
lolphp | allthediamonds | 1vyy50 | <|sols|><|sot|>Fill in the blanks!<|eot|><|sol|>http://i.imgur.com/Wtg4OQZ.png<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 51 |
lolphp | EmptyTon | cex4dg7 | <|sols|><|sot|>Fill in the blanks!<|eot|><|sol|>http://i.imgur.com/Wtg4OQZ.png<|eol|><|sor|> $x = 1;
$y = 1.1;
or some combination like that, because [float keys are converted to ints](http://us1.php.net/manual/en/language.types.array.php). Whee, php<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.