<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>PHPDeveloper.org</title>
    <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org</link>
    <description>Up-to-the Minute PHP News, views and community</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:06:05 -0500</pubDate>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Hartmut Holzgraefe's Blog: PHPReboot Braindump]]></title>
      <guid>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/16976</guid>
      <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/16976</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>
In <a href="http://www.php-groupies.de/blogs/archives/41-PHPreboot-braindump.html">this new post</a> to his blog <i>Hartmut Holzgraefe</i> looks at a new effort that wants to be "the next PHP" while still being PHP. Confused? Take a look at <a href="http://code.google.com/p/phpreboot/">PHPReboot</a>.
</p>
<blockquote>
PHP.reboot is a reboot of PHP, each Hollywood movie has its own <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/">reboot</a>, why not doing the same for one of the most popular programming language. The aim is to keep the philosophy of PHP but adapt it to be more in sync with the Web of 2010.
</blockquote>
<p>
<i>Hartmut</i>'s post is a "braindump" of some of his thoughts about the project including responses to some of its main claims:
</p>
<ul>
<li>less $, less ';' like in javascript
<li>secure by default: no eval, no magic quotes/string interpolation
<li>full unicode support
<li>a SQL compatible syntax
<li>URI/file literal
</ul>
<p>
In <a href="http://www.php-groupies.de/blogs/archives/41-PHPreboot-braindump.html">his opinion</a>, the language doesn't look much like PHP anymore and would not only be incompatible with current PHP but also wouldn't benefit from the C libraries PHP has access to.
</p>
<blockquote>
...so why should it have the letters PHP in its name at all?
</blockquote>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:22:51 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Chris Shiflett's Blog: Technical Vocabulary and Grammar]]></title>
      <guid>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/4694</guid>
      <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/4694</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It's not strictly PHP related, but <i>Chris Shiflett</i> has posted <a href="http://shiflett.org/archive/183">this new item</a> on his blog today with a look at some technical vocabulary and grammar.
<p>
<quote>
<i>
I sometimes wonder why people feel so compelled to use technical terms when talking about computers, even when they don't know what the terms mean. In my experience, those who know the least about a particular topic use the most complicated vocabulary when discussing it. I considered compiling a list of the popular ones, but since I'm lazy and have a blog, I decided to blog about it instead. Feel free to add to the list.
</i>
</quote>
<p>
<a href="http://shiflett.org/archive/183">He mentions</a> the incorrect use of the term "computer" when referring to hardware (overgeneralization), the confusion over very similar technical words (i.e. Orientated and Oriented, Depreciated and Deprecated), the pluralization of company names, and various other issues. Be sure to <a href="http://shiflett.org/archive/183#comments">check out the comments</a> for even more... ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:50:51 -0600</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
