Daniel Brown wrote:
>My Spam filter got sick from over-eating.
didn't your mother ever tell not to eat the crayons? :-)
>
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
My Spam filter got sick from over-eating.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:21 -0700, Jim Lucas wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > I bothered to jump into the thread in the first place because I dislike
> > when someone jumps on a question with an answer that belittles the
> > attempt to do something for which a person is requesting help. Sinc
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:15 -0700, Jim Lucas wrote:
Since this has really nothing to do with helping the OP with his original question, and honestly
sounds like a bitch fest from hell. Why don't you take your disagreement of list Please.
The one thing I hate is whe
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:15 -0700, Jim Lucas wrote:
> Since this has really nothing to do with helping the OP with his original
> question, and honestly
> sounds like a bitch fest from hell. Why don't you take your disagreement of
> list Please.
>
> The one thing I hate is when I see emai
Since this has really nothing to do with helping the OP with his original question, and honestly
sounds like a bitch fest from hell. Why don't you take your disagreement of list Please.
The one thing I hate is when I see emails from one person telling them that their opinion is more
corre
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 22:41 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007 03:27, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > > 1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and
> > > weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what
> > > you've learnt
> >
> > Now
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 03:27, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > 1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and
> > weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what
> > you've learnt
>
> Now, now, let's not pretend that you even nearly suggested that in your
> or
At 4:05 PM +0200 6/19/07, Jochem Maas wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
rules and theories.
Third.
not that my complete lack of knowledge theory and complete lack of respect
for rules has come to any kind of fruition :-P
PS -
At 2:20 AM +0800 6/20/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:58, tedd wrote:
> the *majority* of patents for
inventions are due to the efforts of a lone risk taker putting his
money, time, and effort on the line trying to invent something.
I've no idea what the figures are b
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:20 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 13:47, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > No, it's simple probability.
>
> So it's probability now? Which has the greater probability:
>
> 1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and
> weakn
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:20 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:26, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages
> > only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument.
>
> I really wish you would make
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:58, tedd wrote:
> Yes, but the fact still remains, for the exception of drug companies
> passing DNA sequences off as patents,
In the bad old U S of A you can patent your own grandmother (or at least
someone somewhere thinks you ought be able to).
> the *majority* of
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 13:47, Robert Cummings wrote:
> No, it's simple probability.
So it's probability now? Which has the greater probability:
1) study a selection of frameworks and learn from their strengths and
weaknesses then go on to create a kickass framework based on what you've
learnt
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:26, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Making up phrases and passing them off as though they are common adages
> only goes towards showing that you have no steam to your argument.
I really wish you would make up your mind. On the one hand you value
individuality and originality
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
> rules and theories.
Third.
not that my complete lack of knowledge theory and complete lack of respect
for rules has come to any kind of fruition :-P
PS - the troll seems to been subdued?
--
PHP Gene
On 6/19/07, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 9:35 PM -0400 6/18/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
>rules and theories.
There's the quote of the day.
Second.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-
At 1:41 PM +0800 6/19/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:35, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
rules and theories.
I'm sure most people on the list aren't looking to make revolutionary
advances in php programming
At 9:35 PM -0400 6/18/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Some of the greatest science comes from those unaware of established
rules and theories.
There's the quote of the day.
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (
Hi, as a creator of the one of those half baked's I want to say someting
about this issue.
People wants own Php framework etc. Because
1-) Documentation.
For my point of view most of unix documentation style was too complex. After
more than 10 years of linux experience I still hate man pages.
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:41 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:35, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > Ah but it is quite possible that the OP will go ahead and try to build
> > a framework, he may fail miserably, all the while learning from his
> > mistakes. Then he may try agai
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:35, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Ah but it is quite possible that the OP will go ahead and try to build
> a framework, he may fail miserably, all the while learning from his
> mistakes. Then he may try again and subsequently build a kickass
> framework.
In the pragmatic wo
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:12, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> it seems to me most people use the terms flavor and distribution
> interchangeably when referring to linux.
Yeah and most people forget that linux (the kernel) is only a tiny part of
a "linux distribution".
> although gentoo linux [the only o
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 21:12 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Crayon Shin Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > and you never know a new one could just become the best one.
> >
> > Look, if the OP has what it takes to build "the best" framework he would
> > have just gone ahead and did it
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 05:31 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:18, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > I put that exact phrase (double quoted of course) into Google and
> > turned up the following:
> >
> > Your search - "there's a fine line between personal satisfaction
> >
On 6/18/07, Crayon Shin Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:04, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> discouraging new framework development is like telling the people of
> the world never to develop a new flavor of linux.
There are no new flavours of linux. You're probably mixing it up
At 1:39 AM +0800 6/19/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Maybe so, but much science and many breakthroughs are still done by the
> lone inventory/researcher.
Particularly in the field of astronomy where amateurs are still able to
contribute great
At 2:18 PM -0400 6/18/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 01:39 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:
-snip-
Looks like someone released the Kraken. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http
At 1:48 AM +0800 6/19/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 00:36, tedd wrote:
What about the wasted time in searching through "billions of
half-baked to fully-baked
frameworks" to find one that works for you? That's really a waste of
time.
Well search through the fully-bake
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:04, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> discouraging new framework development is like telling the people of
> the world never to develop a new flavor of linux.
There are no new flavours of linux. You're probably mixing it up with
linux distributions of which there are many. Most of
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:18, Robert Cummings wrote:
> I put that exact phrase (double quoted of course) into Google and
> turned up the following:
>
> Your search - "there's a fine line between personal satisfaction
> and egotism" - did not match any documents.
>
> I'm going to guess you
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 01:39 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > Typo... *yawn*.
>
> Please lookup the real meaning of typo .
>From Webster's: an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset material
I misspelled your as you're. Are you sugg
discouraging new framework development is like telling the people of the
world never to develop a new flavor of linux.
we all know its a massive undertaking, but there is merit and purpose in it
nonetheless.
and you never know a new one could just become the best one.
-nathan
On 6/18/07, Crayon
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 00:36, tedd wrote:
> What about the wasted time in searching through "billions of
> half-baked to fully-baked
> frameworks" to find one that works for you? That's really a waste of
> time.
Well search through the fully-baked frameworks only, and don't create
another half-
On Monday 18 June 2007 04:00, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Typo... *yawn*.
Please lookup the real meaning of typo .
> You knew what was intended.
Of course. I'm not a computer and can make judgements based on context and
experience. I only brought it up because you seem to delight in
grammatical
On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Good reasons to write your own:
It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel
over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked
frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 17:26 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007, martins wrote:
> > So,
> > Much off topic, but ok.
> > 1. drupal are ok, but soo slow.. and I don't need CMS. I want to write
> > my own.
> >
> > The main reason I want write my own framework / project is performance
On Sunday 17 June 2007, martins wrote:
> So,
> Much off topic, but ok.
> 1. drupal are ok, but soo slow.. and I don't need CMS. I want to write
> my own.
>
> The main reason I want write my own framework / project is performance.
> Now I think to use postgresql, memcached, PDO, apc.
Three of those
So,
Much off topic, but ok.
1. drupal are ok, but soo slow.. and I don't need CMS. I want to write
my own.
The main reason I want write my own framework / project is performance.
Now I think to use postgresql, memcached, PDO, apc.
Need some help from experienced users! How to get done big proj
the best part about re-inventing the wheel is,
once youve re-invented it; its yours!
time is precious yes; but what happens when you get along using some lib and
you cant get it to do what you want?
you start writing weak code because you never learned how to write good code
in the first place, o
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 02:55 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 02:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > Why not? You're argument is invalid.
>
> "You're" == "You are", which makes the above invalid, or at least
> nonsensical.
Typo... *yawn*. You knew what was intended. Feel free
On Monday 18 June 2007 02:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Why not? You're argument is invalid.
"You're" == "You are", which makes the above invalid, or at least
nonsensical.
> It suggests that since solutions
> already exist to a problem that we should lie down and leave things as
> they are. Pro
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:52 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > Good reasons to write your own:
>
> It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel
> over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-b
framework, large site
On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Good reasons to write your own:
It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel
over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked
frameworks out there must be s
On Monday 18 June 2007 00:12, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Good reasons to write your own:
It's an extremely inefficient use of precious time. Inventing the wheel
over and over. Surely out of the billions of half-baked to fully-baked
frameworks out there must be something suitable for everyone. How
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:04 -0400, itoctopus wrote:
> cakephp is not bad, why write your own?
Why not write your own?
Good reasons to write your own:
1. gain experience from doing
2. a solution that exactly fits your needs
3. 100% license control
4. it's fun
Cheers,
Rob.
--
.--
46 matches
Mail list logo
