 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Don't mix HTML and PHP. That's just asking for maintenance nightmares.
> I thought that was the design goal of PHP?
Maybe it was, but in practice it's usually a bad idea. I have seen
horrible, horrible examples.
This may be an acceptable exception:
<?php
... lots of PHP code here
?>
<html>
...
<?php (something which calls the code above) ?>
...
</html>
> > You don't need to make a separate 'echo' for each of those things.
> You do if you only have a 40x40 character text window and a text editor
> which malfunctions on long lines...
No you don't:
echo
'hello ' .
$user .
", how are you?\n";
At least it saves you from writing 'echo' a million times.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>>> Don't mix HTML and PHP. That's just asking for maintenance nightmares.
>
>> I thought that was the design goal of PHP?
>
> Maybe it was, but in practice it's usually a bad idea. I have seen
> horrible, horrible examples.
I can imagine...
The PHP tutorial explains how you can do "really cool" things like this:
<?php if ($somecondition) { ?>
Lots of HTML here...
<?php } else { ?>
lots more HTML here...
<?php } ?>
Which... uh... well I can imagine it becoming messy quite fast.
> This may be an acceptable exception:
>
> <?php
> ... lots of PHP code here
> ?>
>
> <html>
> ...
> <?php (something which calls the code above) ?>
> ...
> </html>
Yeah, that seems more like the model to follow. (In fact, some of the
user comments I've seen suggest that all the "real code" should be in
include files instead and just called from the HTML pages.)
>>> You don't need to make a separate 'echo' for each of those things.
>
>> You do if you only have a 40x40 character text window and a text editor
>> which malfunctions on long lines...
>
> No you don't:
>
> echo
> 'hello ' .
> $user .
> ", how are you?\n";
Ooo... you can do that?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Warp wrote:
>> No you don't:
>>
>> echo
>> 'hello ' .
>> $user .
>> ", how are you?\n";
>
> Ooo... you can do that?
>
Yes, and you can also pass multiple arguments to 'echo' (ie. what Warp
said, but with a comma instead of the concat operator). It's probably a
millisecond faster to do it that way too.
http://blog.libssh2.org/index.php?/archives/28-How-long-is-a-piece-of-string.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47a87b06@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Don't mix HTML and PHP. That's just asking for maintenance nightmares.
>
> I thought that was the design goal of PHP?
I second Warp. You can mix HTML and PHP in the same page but it's likely to
turn into some horrible mess before you know it.
The trick is to build long text strings in PHP (that include the HTML tags
and everything you want to see on screen) and then echo the result.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> I second Warp. You can mix HTML and PHP in the same page but it's likely to
> turn into some horrible mess before you know it.
I can believe that...
> The trick is to build long text strings in PHP (that include the HTML tags
> and everything you want to see on screen) and then echo the result.
Really? It seems being able to write a basically normal HTML page with
just the odd snippet of PHP here and there to insert some computed value
is the main appeal of the language. Trying to build giant strings tends
to be awkward.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> The trick is to build long text strings in PHP (that include the HTML tags
> and everything you want to see on screen) and then echo the result.
Even if some library or whatever just echoes/prints everything it
produces (instead of returning a string), there's a way to redirect
that printing to a string. (I don't remember now the exact command
for that, though.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Gilles Tran <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> The trick is to build long text strings in PHP (that include the HTML tags
>> and everything you want to see on screen) and then echo the result.
>
> Even if some library or whatever just echoes/prints everything it
> produces (instead of returning a string), there's a way to redirect
> that printing to a string. (I don't remember now the exact command
> for that, though.)
>
ob_start();
function_that_prints_stuff();
$string = ob_get_clean();
ob_get_clean is like getting the string with ob_get_contents, and then
throwing away the buffer with ob_end_clean. There is a dozen functions
for output buffering, so be sure to rtfm :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I just learned PHP. I feel unclean...
Good! That means you have a sense of elegance. :-) But we knew that.
> [Seriously. The *introductory tutorial* is littered with warnings about
> obscure functionallity which used to be broken but now isn't, and
> strange features that used to work one way but now work a slightly
> different way. I'm almost scared to write anything with this...]
Yes. You should be.
That and the complete clusterfuck that the naming of all the
functionality has.
> Still, for some reason PHP is extremely popular,
Because, sadly, it has huge quivering gobs of useful libraries in it.
> stitching complex blocks of HTML together with relative ease.
Don't do that on a real project. Use actual data-like templates. The
problem is that the person writing the code isn't the person who decides
what goes in the HTML.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> stitching complex blocks of HTML together with relative ease.
http://www.odi.ch/prog/design/php/index.php
http://www.odi.ch/prog/design/php/guide.php
I disagree with "no reason to use PHP5". PHP5 has a lot of great
features (most of what the previous section says PHP4 lacks), and PHP4
is officially unmaintained since 01/01/2008.
"As PHP does not have a namespace facility like Java packages"
PHP6 will. WAY too late, but credits to them...
All the rest is quite good advice IMHO.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I just learned PHP. I feel unclean...
>
> Good! That means you have a sense of elegance. :-) But we knew that.
;-)
>> I'm almost scared to write anything with this...
>
> Yes. You should be.
Hmm, well, it's not so bad if you purposely avoid all the unpredictable
edge cases. But what if you have to work on somebody else's code? My
God, it doesn't bear thinking about...
> That and the complete clusterfuck that the naming of all the
> functionality has.
Beings a whole new being to "it's massively clustered". ;-)
>> Still, for some reason PHP is extremely popular,
>
> Because, sadly, it has huge quivering gobs of useful libraries in it.
Yes, I noticed that.
In Haskell, accessing a database involves downloading source code,
trying to sort out a huge undocumented dependency hell, trying to make
the thing compile and using voodoo dolls. And then you *might* be able
to access a database.
In PHP, you just... install PHP. And it works. Immediately.
Gee, which one would you choose?
I guess this is why we have Type-I and Type-II languages. *sigh*
>> stitching complex blocks of HTML together with relative ease.
>
> Don't do that on a real project. Use actual data-like templates. The
> problem is that the person writing the code isn't the person who decides
> what goes in the HTML.
Hmm. That sounds like an interesting problem to attempt to solve...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
